Datasets:

enoreyes

/

imdb_3000_sphere

like 1

"Ninja III" is not quite as bad as "Enter The Ninja", the first part of this "trilogy", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic "The Exorcist" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the "dominated" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.

A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.<br /><br />What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).<br /><br />The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.<br /><br />In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works.

A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role...

Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.<br /><br />A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.<br /><br />When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.<br /><br />My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.<br /><br />The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.<br /><br />Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.

This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.

When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts.

This is a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.<br /><br />The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.<br /><br />It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.<br /><br />There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.

In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!<br /><br />I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good. <br /><br />Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic. <br /><br />This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either. <br /><br />But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up. <br /><br />Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend. <br /><br />In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason? <br /><br />To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies? <br /><br />The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.

An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.<br /><br />The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as "Singin' Sandy" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!<br /><br />Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.<br /><br />Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al "Fuzzy" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue.

Okay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clichéd' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.

For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.

At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clichéd '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.<br /><br />Where I saw it: HBO Comedy <br /><br />My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)

while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.

Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.

Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it. <br /><br />It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy "Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out.

This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick "Disorder in the Court". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.<br /><br />The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of "Voices of Spring". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.<br /><br />What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed! <br /><br />10/10

A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.<br /><br />The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.<br /><br />The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.<br /><br />The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.<br /><br />Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.

This is an entertaining "history" of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.<br /><br />One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.<br /><br />The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.<br /><br />As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is.

Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.<br /><br />Too cartoonish and very disappointing.

Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this "film", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these "actresses"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?

When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean.

When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.<br /><br />Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.<br /><br />My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.<br /><br />Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.

To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.<br /><br />I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.<br /><br />They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style. <br /><br />The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra. <br /><br />This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night.

Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys. <br /><br />To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board. <br /><br />Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.<br /><br />Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!<br /><br />2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.

Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.<br /><br />Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.<br /><br />The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.<br /><br />All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.

OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.

"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)

Honestly, I was expecting to HATE this one, and really only checked it out because Jenna Jameson is in it...but I have to say I got a kick out of EVIL BREED. A group of college kids and their teacher go on a "field trip" to Ireland. Their lodgings are located near the woods where it is rumored that strange things happen and tourists often disappear without a trace. The group of post-teens is warned by the property's caretaker not to venture into the woods - but being the stupid B-movie characters that they are - of course they pay no attention and pay for their mistake one-by-one... First off, there is plenty wrong with EVIL BREED. The acting/dialog is pretty weak, and my major gripe is that a film that has Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn, and Taylor Hayes should have FAR more gratuitous nudity than was on display here - and Jenna's role in this production is grossly over-hyped, as she has a combined total of about 2 minutes of screen time. Even less with Chasey, and Ginger Lynn shows no skin and has the worst Irish accent ever. Also the last scene of the film makes absolutely no sense and feels like it's thrown in just to end the film. Those gripes aside - there is some good stuff as well. Richard Greico and Chasey Lain are both dispatched early on, with Greico's nude torso ending up on a roasting spit and Chasey's guts hanging out from being torn in half (though how she ends up this way isn't shown on-screen)...not bad for the first 5 minutes. The other kill scenes are pretty inventive, including Jenna's forced breast implant removal, a guy getting his colon pulled out through his ass, a knife through the face, and a few other notables. The implant and colon scenes also have uncut versions that are on the special features and it's a shame the producers made them chop 'em, so to speak. Also the film moves along at a pretty good clip once it gets moving so you don't really have too much time to be bored. The "creature" FX are also done competently which definitely helps. Overall, EVIL BREED was not NEARLY as bad as I expected. This one, along with SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER have ALMOST renewed my interest in American low-budget straight-to-video films. I usually steer clear of them as a whole, but these two have been decent enough to give me some faith. EVIL BREED is no masterpiece, but it is a decent way to blow 90 minutes - might not hurt to suck on a bottle of cheap bourbon while you're at it - I know I was, and I'm sure it didn't hurt the experience. 7.5/10

Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, "Scarface" is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the "king" in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10

The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both "Breathless" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with "Easy Rider". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. "Head" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.<br /><br />The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic / Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10/10)

Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me.

Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.<br /><br />Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities. <br /><br />The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.<br /><br />Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy". <br /><br />This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.<br /><br />Give me Smiley any day.

AG was an excellent presentation of drama, suspense and thriller that is so rare to American TV. Sheriff Lucas gave many a viewer the willies. We rooted for Caleb as he strove to resist the overtures of Sheriff Lucas. We became engrossed and fearful upon learning of the unthinkable connection between these two characters. The manipulations which weekly gave cause to fear what Lucas would do next were truly surprising. This show lived up to the "Gothic" moniker in ways American entertainment has so seldom attempted, much less mastered. The suits definitely made a big mistake in not supporting this show. This show puts shame to the current glut of "reality" shows- which are so less than satisfying viewing.The call for a DVD box set is well based. This show is quality viewing for a discerning market hungry for quality viewing. A public that is tiring of over-saturation of mind-numbing reality fare will welcome this gem of real storytelling. Bring on the DVD box set!!

"Pitch Black" was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.<br /><br />The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque. <br /><br />I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.<br /><br />Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love/hate type of character.<br /><br />Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.<br /><br />Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.<br /><br />Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.<br /><br />Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.<br /><br />The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.<br /><br />This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it.

I've seen a lot of movies in my time and this one really stands out as being the absolute worst movie ever made in the history of film making anywhere in the world. It took me 3 efforts to watch this movie. The first time I fell asleep after 15 minutes from boredom, possibly because I was already tired as it was late at night. The second effort I managed to get through 35 minutes but yet again I found myself asleep. I can go on and on like this but I think you're getting the point......nothing happens ever in this movie. A complete waste of time and money. This movie really sucks. Watch it and you will know what I am talking about. If you can get 40 minutes into this movie without shaking your head and wondering what the hell is the point of it all then you are indeed a masochist. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 is because 0 was not provided as an option. I just thought the world needed to be warned before either hiring or worse yet...buying this trash. LATER!

This movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed. Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly Hunter's directions to cab drivers!

I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto "Cidade de Deus / City of God". Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than "City of God".<br /><br />The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of São Paulo.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.<br /><br />Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on.

This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.<br /><br />The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball "Wallace" and his silent-and-smart dog "Gromit." Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in "Best Of Show."<br /><br />My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times.

One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.

I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.<br /><br />The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.<br /><br />Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.<br /><br />Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.

James Cameron's 'Titanic' is essentially a romantic adventure with visual grandeur and magnificence, a timeless tragic love story set against the background of this major historical event... It's an astonishing movie that exemplifies hope, love and humanity... <br /><br />Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific on screen with big charisma... Conveying passion, trust, insouciance and ingenuity, he's a free-spirited wanderer with artistic pretensions, and a zest for life... <br /><br />Kate Winslet is absolutely lovely as the confused upper-class teen engaged to a nasty rich guy who finds herself, one night, plunged to the depths of despair...<br /><br />Billy Zane is an arrogant racist, abusive and ultra rich who would lie, cheat, steal, bribe with money or even use an innocent young child to escape defeat... He keeps a 56 carat blue diamond worn by Louis XVI...<br /><br />Kathy Bates is the legendary unsinkable Molly Brown, the richest woman in Denver, who is a lot less uptight than the other rich folk on the ship...<br /><br />Frances Fisheris is the impecunious cold snobbish mother who, deathly afraid of losing her social stature, forces her daughter to become engaged to marry a rich, supercilious snob...<br /><br />Victor Garber is the master shipbuilder, the real-life character who attempts to fix time, to measure it, in a sense, to make it into history... <br /><br />Jonathan Hyde is the White Star Chairman who wants the Titanic to break the Trans-Atlantic speed record, in spite of warnings that icebergs may have floated into the hazardous northern crossing...<br /><br />Bill Paxton is the opportunistic undersea explorer in search for a very rare diamond called the "Heart of the Ocean." <br /><br />Gloria Stuart is the 101-year old woman who reveals a never-before told love story... The nightmare, the horror and the shock are imprinted upon her deeply lined face... <br /><br />'Titanic' is loaded with luminous photography and sweeping visuals as the footage of the shipwrecked Ocean liner lying motionless on the ocean floor; the incredible transformation of the bow of the sunken 'Titanic' that takes the viewer back to 1912, revealing the meticulously re-created interiors; the first sight of the Titanic steamed steadily toward her date with destiny; the Titanic, leaving the Southampton dock, and some dolphins appear jumping, racing along in front of the luxurious ship; DeCaprio and Winslet flying at the ship's front rail in a gorgeous magic moment; the intertwining of past and present as Jack was drawing Rose on his paper, the camera zooms closely on young Rose's eye, only to transform its shape into Gloria Stuart's aged eye...<br /><br />Chilling scenes: Titanic's inevitable collision with destiny; James Cameron—in one of the most terrifying sequences ever put on film— takes us down with the Titanic, finally leaving us floundering in the icy water, screaming for help that never comes...<br /><br />Winner of 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, James Cameron's "Titanic" is a gigantic epic where you don't just watch the film, you experience it! The visual effects are amazing, like no other film's... The decor is overwhelming... James Horner's music intensifies the emotions... The whole movie is hunting and involving, filled with a wide range of deep feelings... <br /><br />It's truly a moving tribute to those who lost their lives on that unfortunate ship...

one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!

I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.<br /><br />But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.<br /><br />Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.<br /><br />And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.

I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.<br /><br />Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.<br /><br />Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.

One of my favorite villains, the Evil Princess is just the perfect villain for this movie. Full of space travel, horses, diamonds, mystical characters, colorful backgrounds, evil characters, etc etc. Very bright, full of action, you will not get bored. Great movie!

I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.<br /><br />Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10/10.<br /><br />The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.<br /><br />From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.<br /><br />There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.<br /><br />If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again.

Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.<br /><br />This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.<br /><br />See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.

Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.

Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.<br /><br />Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.<br /><br />Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp

1st watched 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.

I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is.

Don't Look In the Basement' is so easy to knock but the truth is simply that Brownrigg is one of Horrors real underground stars and IMHO is vastly overdue some proper recognition. 'Don't' is his undisputed masterpiece. This scummy psychodrama snags the viewer straightaway into such an odd, disjointed, claustrophobic world of sweating insanity you have no real idea what the hell is going on. It succeeds in making you feel strangely dirty, just plain grubby, for Brownrigg's world is this mad, unwashed, scummy prison cell of rants, obsessions and all shades of mental illness. And he uses his low budget palette to wrap his grot blanket around you like a bad memory. There is just something so beautifully odd about the whole damn thing. In a word, classic.... Also, if you watch 'Don't' first then you will have some idea of the insane psychodrama style that marks Brownrigg's other films. In summary they really don't come any more esoteric than this - well, actually they do, track down Brownrigg's 'Keep My Grave Open'. Mad genius. Accept no substitute.

Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down! <br /><br />Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.<br /><br />'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.

This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.<br /><br />The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.<br /><br />'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real. <br /><br />Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.

Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.

Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it.

I saw this movie (unfortunately) because it was the only option at that time and because David Zucker was the director. I saw his previous "Naked gun" (both parts), Airplane and Top secret!, and I liked, at least I had a good time and laughed. I'm not saying that the movies I mentioned were master pieces, but were OK. I don't recall any other more stupid movie than this. It's incredible how Hollywood industry is in total decadence. If some studio spends any money to produce this awful picture, then is not a surprise that this kind of histories are more common on these days. This is a clear reflect of a decadent civilization where sex symbols and stupid plots are produced to entertain the common people. I don't have any good to say about this film. If you are planning to rent it or buy it, please don't waste your money or your time, avoid it no matter what. Even if you are fan of one of the actors, does not worth it. In fact this could be a very good example of what a Director should avoid. I won't see a Zucker movie again. (He is planning to direct the fourth sequel of Scary movie, imagine that!). Pathetic. Awful.

When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting – be it swordplay or fisticuffs – and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.<br /><br />"Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.<br /><br />Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.<br /><br />Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.<br /><br />I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'

First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.<br /><br />Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.<br /><br />As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.<br /><br />Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.<br /><br />The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him? <br /><br />This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).

Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since. <br /><br />Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences. <br /><br />It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools. <br /><br />10/10

This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.<br /><br />It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.

This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.<br /><br />David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.<br /><br />Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.<br /><br />So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.<br /><br />The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).<br /><br />There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.<br /><br />This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.<br /><br />In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.

I watched it some years ago. I remembered it as very mysterious situations, and a mixture of melancholic things, like the fate of Dorothy and the personal future of Bogdanovich.<br /><br />I turn to watch on my VHS copy and then I was reviewing it more and more. Nowadays I am waiting for the DVD version, at any price, please!<br /><br />The country and easy listening music is very well chosen from the very first second, a bit of blueish, but also happy.<br /><br />All the characters are great to me, with funny situations, great acting and a lot of dialogs that have turn this as a cult movie to me and a lot of people I met on the Internet or cinema clubs. This may not be casualty.<br /><br />I think that the title is a hope about life! You have to be happy and laugh as much as possible<br /><br />I know that this may be a particular comment for the movie, but the fact is that I like it very much, I think that movie marked me and I will never forget it.

This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...

I picked this film up at my local library. Having met the director at a film festival late last year, I was curious to "check out" his work. I was pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />The film takes a fresh look at familiar subjects, love, infidelity, friendships, jealousy. It can be a bit 'talky' at times but never so much as to completely sink the film. I enjoyed watching a love story with characters that CLEARLY belong together and watching them make conscious decisions rather than haphazardly "falling" into something as important as love.<br /><br />The contrast between this film and the average low-budget shoot-em' up black film is quite distinct. Check it out. If you're lucky, your copy will come with a copy of the soundtrack like mine did. Good stuff!

This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class.

Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"

How is bear´s paw, elephant´s trunk or monkey´s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.<br /><br />This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung´s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...<br /><br />This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...<br /><br />Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though.

After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.<br /><br />I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.<br /><br />The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.<br /><br />I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'.

I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.

Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.

First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.

Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some). <br /><br />Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.<br /><br />When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together. <br /><br />Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown? <br /><br />Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???

John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). <br /><br />All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! <br /><br />John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.

A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me.

The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.

When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?<br /><br />Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?<br /><br />You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)<br /><br />I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.<br /><br />I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???<br /><br />To sum up.....<br /><br />The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....<br /><br />Thanks for reading my review.

This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!

I just recently bought "The Big Trail" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation. <br /><br />There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstacles—both natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.<br /><br />Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life. <br /><br />The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.<br /><br />I've read much criticism of Wayne's performance—some even going so far as to blame his "wooden acting" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in "Stagecoach". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After "The Big Trail", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When "Stagecoach" came he was ready for it and "The Big Trail" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.<br /><br />I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.<br /><br />All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made.

I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.<br /><br />** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly. <br /><br />If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:<br /><br />First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.

Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film. <br /><br />Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons. <br /><br />DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways). <br /><br />I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.

This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.<br /><br />We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.<br /><br />It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.<br /><br />Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.<br /><br />But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.<br /><br />The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.<br /><br />So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.

A bunch of American students and their tutor decide to visit the ugliest part of Ireland in order to study ancient religious practices. Despite being repeatedly warned about the dangers of straying off the beaten path (by the local creepy Irish guy, natch), they do just that, and wind up with their insides on the outside courtesy of a family of inbred cannibals (the descendants of the infamous Sawney Bean clan, who according to the film's silly plot, upped sticks from Scotland and settled on the Emerald Isle).<br /><br />If you think that porn stars plus low budget horror automatically equals tons of nudity and terrible acting, then think again: Evil Breed is bristling with adult stars, but in fact, there's not nearly as much nudity as one might expect given the 'talent' involved, and the acting, although far from Oscar worthy, ain't all that bad (with the exception of Ginger Lynn Allen, who we know can do marvellous 'French', but whose Irish is lousy).<br /><br />Evil Breed opens in superb style with the brutal slaughter of a couple of amorous campers: after some brief under-canvas sex, the silicone enhanced hottie is dragged from the tent and torn in half; the guy has his arms and legs cut off and is roasted on a spit. It's a very gory start, and bodes well for the rest of the film.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after this promising beginning, things start to go seriously downhill: we are introduced to the main characters, an annoying bunch of twenty-somethings just begging to become cannibal chow, and are subjected to a fair amount of time wasting in the form of some terrible false scares, a lot of blarney about murderous druids from local Irish weirdo Gary (Simon Peacock), and worst of all, some sub-Scream, post-modernistic conversation about the conventions of horror films (how clever!).<br /><br />Then, just as it looks as though the film is never going to get any better, director Christian Viel decides to get serious: a guy gets a knife rammed through his head and there's a gratuitous sex-in-the-shower scene featuring lovely blonde Gillian Leigh (NOT a porn star, but I'm sure there's a career there waiting if she wants it). After that, things improve rapidly as the cannibals kick into top flesh-eating gear, and the film is transformed into a veritable bloodbath: Gary has a machete rammed up his ass (about time!), and is strangled with his intestines; Ginger Lynn kick-boxes a mutant; Jenna Jameson is torn open, eviscerated and has her silicone breast implant gnawed on by confused cannibal; a guy gets decapitated by cheese wire; and Taylor Hayes is seen bloody, bruised and naked with a dead foetus between her legs (apparantly, she's been captured and used as breeding stock).<br /><br />All of this is so outrageously gory that it makes sitting through the less interesting stuff worthwhile, and earns Evil Breed a final rating of 7/10.<br /><br />NB. A very troubled production and studio meddling resulted in Christian Viel eventually abandoning the project. Re-shoots were done and the gore was heavily trimmed for a US release. The good news is that although the film doesn't flow as well as it might have, and is cursed with a terrible ending, the UK DVD (the version I watched) seems to have been left relatively intact as far as the splatter is concerned (only 13s were cut from the film in total).

Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. <br /><br />Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished – probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. <br /><br />Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless. <br /><br />This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. <br /><br />The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students – sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.<br /><br />I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. <br /><br />(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)

I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise. <br /><br />I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..

So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.<br /><br />And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.<br /><br />Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema.

Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.<br /><br />To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.<br /><br />The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.<br /><br />To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.<br /><br />Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.

I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.<br /><br />Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.<br /><br />The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.<br /><br />Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.<br /><br />Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good!

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).<br /><br />Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, "Don't Torture Donald Duck", literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.<br /><br />The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.<br /><br />Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Joël Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.<br /><br />When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire. <br /><br />Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 8/10

It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.

A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).<br /><br />Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.<br /><br />Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'

The beginning was decent; the ending was alright.<br /><br />Sadly, this movie suffers from complete and utter shallowness of the characters, unrealistic confrontations/fight scenes, lack of anyone intelligent outside of the shuttle. This makes for an awful middle screenplay. <br /><br />Stuff to look for: overly obvious foreshadowing, fast-healing cuts, overly smoky fires, fun seatbelts, delayed reactions.<br /><br />I did give it a 4, not a 0, because the start of the movie had some nice elements of happiness and basic character development. The relationship between the main, dark-haired girl and her fiancée is touched upon briefly, and the placement of the blond friend's impact on that relationship is present, though awkwardly so. The business discovered at the end is becoming more mainstream and decently done, though, as another commenter pointed out, not unexpected. <br /><br />~viper~

Specks of white and various shapes, a beautiful nude, random images. That is what this little experimental short film is.<br /><br />It's kind of interesting to think how in the early days of film such images could be transferred onto film, but despite my love of a lot of surreal images and films, and a fascination with the bizarre, this film just didn't do it for me.<br /><br />I'm not sorry I watched it, but if there is any underlying meaning in it, I don't get it. Visually, it is not that outstanding, in my humble opinion. As an example of dadaism, I suppose it would fit in quite well, since it seems to reject any semblance of logic or reason, though I would have preferred that it do it in a more visually interesting way.<br /><br />But to each his own.

This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.<br /><br />The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.<br /><br />The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.<br /><br />The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.

Stanwyck at her villainous best, Robinson her equal - as ruthless land barons in this fairly ordinary western.<br /><br />Some good action scenes, strong use of location, colour and Cinemascope. But why the obvious use of stock footage in the stampede scene?<br /><br />Ford is dependable as always and Foster is strong as Robinson's daughter, but it is the baddies' film. And it's not just Stanwyck and Robinson - Brian Keith makes a surprisingly dashing villain as Stanwyck's lover, and Richard Jaeckel is unforgettable as a cold-hearted killer.<br /><br />See it for the camp value.

"The Bat People" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, "The Bat People" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects – although courtesy of a young Stan Winston – are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as "people" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, "The Bat People" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without "The Bat People".

The best Treasure Island ever made. They just don't make films<br /><br />like this anymore, or ever. No one makes films like this. More<br /><br />than a novelty, this film is funny, frank and fascinating, yet moody,<br /><br />mysterious and morose. This is one of my favorite pictures. The<br /><br />director must have had some idea what it is all about, but he<br /><br />certainly leaves room for your own impressions and interpretations, while leaving little left to the imagination. Why he<br /><br />has not made more films like this, I have no idea. While<br /><br />reminding me of some of the best noir, it is one of a kind. But this<br /><br />is not for the lazy or simple.

Fair drama/love story movie that focuses on the lives of blue collar people finding new life thru new love.The acting here is good but the film fails in cinematography,screenplay,directing and editing.The story/script is only average at best.This film will be enjoyed by Fonda and De Niro fans and by people who love middle age love stories where in the coartship is on a more wiser and cautious level.It would also be interesting for people who are interested on the subject matter regarding illiteracy.......

This movie rocked!!!! saw it at a screener a coupla weeks ago. Kinda a strange story, where James Franco plays this jerk who marries Sienna Miller just to get out of the country and they go to Niagara Falls for their honeymoon. Don't wanna give it away cuz the movie isn't released yet but its totally cool and you would never expect the stuff that happens. I kinda thought I would hate it cuz its a romance but its also kinda twisted and stuff which I like a lot. The acting is really good and Sienna Miller is totally smokin' and plays this really sweet girl. I think she should do more roles like this. James plays a jerk but you end up liking him and the end of the movie is really good. David Carradine plays a cowboy and he is good. I gave this movie a 10 because I came out of the movie really liking it and wanting to see it again which I didn't expect and my girlfriend really liked it and cried. good date flick