Datasets:

enoreyes

/

imdb_3000_sphere

like 1

and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.<br /><br />Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.<br /><br />The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.<br /><br />The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10.

It's like someone took a fantasy-type video game and put it in a blender, and the resulting scene mishmash is what we have to sit through.<br /><br />Now let me go on record by saying how much I love Chinese fantasy films. From the fun and silly, to those focusing on martial arts, to the more dramatic and romantic types—it's a genre I very much enjoy. Films like "A Chinese Odyssey: Pandora's Box" and "A Chinese Odyssey: Cinderella" (both of which were written and/or directed by Jeffrey Lau); "The Bride with White Hair"; "Butterfly & Sword"; "Green Snake"; "A Chinese Ghost Story"; "Swordman II"; "Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain"; "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; and others. Which is why I was looking forward to "A Chinese Tall Story." One of the film's characters is the "Monkey King" (aka Sun Wukong), an extremely well-known character in Chinese mythology, first told in the stories of the "Journey to the West," the epic adventure written about 500 years ago. (The story of the Monkey King and his disciples is also the focus of the "Chinese Odyssey" films, amongst many others). Other familiar characters that appear in the film are Zhu Wuneng (the pig character) and Sha Wujing.<br /><br />So how does it all go wrong? Well, let's take an example familiar to Western audiences. How about the Robin Hood mythology? A well known story from ye olden days. Let's say that our Robin Hood film starred Wesley Snipes as Robin Hood, and Haley Joel Osment as Friar Tuck. Maid Marian is none other than Rosie Perez. Let's give Sir Robin an Uzi as well, because you never know when you might have to waste the Sheriff of Nottingham. They might need rocket packs also, and while we're at it, give them a tactical nuclear weapon because that sure could come in handy. If you think this sounds like a really neat retelling of the Robin Hood tale, then "A Chinese Tall Story" is the movie for you! As I indicated above, this movie is a jumbled mess. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced not only to Sun Wukong, Zhu Wuneng, and Sha Wujing, but also to the monk Tripitaka (who is actually the main protagonist), kidnapped children, a "millennium bug demon" (which shoots laser beams), an underground Tree God, a lizard imp tribe, an angelic girl in an intergalactic egg, the Lord Chancellor Tortoise, a Sea Dragon King, a ever-morphing magic golden staff, a chatterbox imp girl, wormholes in space, and the Four Heavenly Knights. All this wouldn't be too bad--the tales and myths passed down over the years certainly do have all sorts of fantastical elements. But I guarantee you the Chinese mythology does not include much of the stuff we get subjected to in the last half of the film. (Helpful advice to the filmmakers: Just because your computer effects guys CAN come up with cool looking spaceships and depictions of intergalactic war, does not mean they SHOULD).<br /><br />You know your Chinese mythology movie is on the wrong track when the director asks (and I am not making this up—it's a direct quote from the commentary) "I asked the composer whether or not we can have a more rock-and-roll type music when she transforms into some kind of android-like thing." Is there a story hidden in here somewhere? Yes. Yes, there is. Most of the adventure follows Tripitaka (played by Nicholas Tse—"Gen-X Cops," "Time and Tide," "My Schoolmate the Barbarian") and Meiyan, the lizard imp girl (played by Charlene Choi and a computer). Choi is the best thing going in this film. You may know her as half of the Canto-pop group "Twins" and from other films such as "The Twins Effect" (a fun flick) and "Just One Look" (a surprisingly good drama/romance/comedy). Poor Choi, being a lizard imp and all, is hardly recognizable with her warts, snagged out teeth, doughy nose, and hunched back. That is until the computers get a hold of and beautify her, which somehow makes it worse. Tse is passable, but all of the supporting actors were abysmal. A couple of recognizable faces in bit parts are wasted.<br /><br />At one point I was debating with myself if "A Chinese Tall Story" was a spoof. I was almost able to convince myself that it was when the intergalactic egg girl (played by a very pretty Fan Bing-Bing) got out and lit up a Marlboro (!) while talking with Tripitaka who was practicing martial arts dressed in a Spider-Man costume (!!). But it is not a spoof. Of course there is the typical Hong Kong silliness, but the movie takes itself seriously enough, with enough scenes of romance and pathos (scored with a sledghammering of violins and evocative cellos) and rousing action and adventure.<br /><br />You might think that you could watch this on a Netflix rental and it wouldn't cost you anything. (Oh, but it'll cost you, all right).<br /><br />Is there anything good to say? Sure. The colors are vibrant (they are the best thing about this movie). And the filmmakers certainly were trying very hard. Too bad all that effort went into a movie that is not much more than a bad video game.

It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.<br /><br />The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.<br /><br />Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.<br /><br />The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.<br /><br />This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not.

This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.<br /><br />I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.

This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.

Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).<br /><br />The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.<br /><br />Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).<br /><br />Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.<br /><br />Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.

And a perfect film to watch during the holiday season as the winter/Xmas atmosphere that Burton creates for Gotham City is way cool. It's weird that Warner decided to release this as a summer film. It doesn't fit.<br /><br />But what's even weirder, when you consider the content of this film, is that it was aimed at families. An upper-class family throws their mutant baby down the sewer, a socio phobic billionaire dresses up in leather as a flying rodent, a lonely secretary dresses up in leather as a feline and a freak runs for political office. And S&M and bondage are presented in a very perverted way. But Burton got away with it. His visual style in this film is at it's best.<br /><br />This and Batman: Dead End are the only true live-action incarnations of the comic-book character. True, the animated series was the closest to the source material, but compared with Batman Forever and the un-nameable one after that, Batman Returns is the best of the four.<br /><br />Darker and more violent than the first movie, the sense of Gothic pathos reaches a new high. I was quite keen on Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (don't even get me started on George Clooney!), he displayed the right balance of weirdo loner and cool crime fighter. Michelle Pfieffer is great as Catwoman (much sexier and more 'realisticly' cat-like), she wears that leather outfit better than Halle Berry. And Danny DeVito was so convincing as the Penguin that his scenes became disturbing to watch. And Christopher Walken is brilliant as the spooky Max Shreck (if you think you recognise Chip Shrek it's none other than a very young Leatherface/Butterfinger).<br /><br />Danny Elfman's score is also even better than it was first time round. His powerful and engaging themes are way better than the dross that followed in the later 2 Schumacher movies. This movie is the Batman phenomenon at its Zenith. Forget the following sequels and stick to the animated series after this. Let's hope that Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale can bring some integrity back to the live action Batman with their movie next year.<br /><br />This DVD was one of the first ever DVDs released by Warner (almost 7 years ago!!!) and as a result there are NO features and the case is a snapper. Pick it up cheap like I did and hope for an SE in the future.

Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.<br /><br />The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.<br /><br />Good acting, though. Watchable.

TV churns out dozens of true-crime movies every year. You can see 3 or 4 every Saturday on Lifetime, and Court TV can be relied on for a few every weekend. So I started watching The Morrison Murders thinking I knew very well what to expect: a more or less competent retelling of a real-life family murder. What I got was a subtle, beautifully acted drama that engrossed me from start to finish.<br /><br />Both the brothers were totally convincing, and Jonathan Scarfe was perfect in the challenging role of Luke. The look and feel of Georgia was in almost every frame. If I had any complaint, it was Gordon Clapp as the sheriff. He just doesn't look or act like a small-town Southern lawman named Byron Calhoun. He looks and sounds like Medavoy, and Medavoy is not right for this part.<br /><br />But this is a minor quibble: The Morrison Murders is well worth watching, and not just on a rainy Saturday afternoon. If you're going out, tape it. You won't regret it.

Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey) <br /><br />International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.<br /><br />You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.<br /><br />"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare." - Officer (Brian Currie)

Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The "plot", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*<br /><br />The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.

As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.<br /><br />With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.<br /><br />The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilises the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.<br /><br />As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.<br /><br />Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.

This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the "special effects" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary.

Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.<br /><br />Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and "Serpico." These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.<br /><br />Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.<br /><br />Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s.

OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.

The movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from "Wait Until Dark" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. "Dead Silent" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where "Wait Until Dark" built up unbearable suspense, "Dead Silent" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.

Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.<br /><br />That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.<br /><br />Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".<br /><br />There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.<br /><br />Rating:- * 1/2/*****

I am a huge Rupert Everett fan. I adore Kathy Bates so when I saw it available I decided to check it out. The synopsis didn't really tell you much. In parts it was silly , touching and in others some parts were down right hysterical.<br /><br />Any person that is a huge fan of a personality of any type will find some small identifying traits with the main character. (Of course there are many they won't, but that is the point)<br /><br />If you like any of the actors give it a watch but don't look for any thing too dramatic it's good fun.<br /><br />I might also mention you can see how darn tall Rupert is. I mean I knew he was 6'4" but he seems even more in this film. He even seemed to stoop a bit due to the other characters height in this. He is tall! I mean tall!!!! And for you Rupert fans there is a bare chest scene...WONDERFUL!

You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.

Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, "Four Friends" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!!

Central Airport is the story of a pilot named Jim (Richard Barthelmess) who has one bad flight in over 4000 hours and is forced to give up commercial flying. He meets a beautiful girl named Jill (Sally Eilers) and the two start up an act involving flying and stunts. The two start a relationship, but when Jim is hurt, his brother (Tom Brown) takes over the act for a while and falls for his brother's girlfriend. From there, things get exciting and terribly terribly sad.<br /><br />This film is a pre-code because of several reasons. First, Jim and Jill have consummated their relationship without being married and with no intention of having a wedding. Second, Eilers is shown in her underwear, and absolutely restricted scene when the Production Code came into effect.<br /><br />This film does not skimp on the dramatic love triangle and in consequence ends bittersweetly.

Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.<br /><br />Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.<br /><br />No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension<br /><br />In a word - no.<br /><br />Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.

Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie.

Saw this movie on its release and have treasured it since. What a wonderful group of actors (I always find the casting one of the most interesting aspects of a film). Really enjoyed seeing dramatic actress Jacqueline Bisset in this role and Wallace Shawn is always a hoot. The script is smart, sly and tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at almost everything "Beverley Hills". Loved Paul Bartel's "doctor" and Ray Sharkey's manservant. This was raunchy and crude, but thank god! Unless you're a prude, I heartily recommend this movie. FYI for anyone who likes to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Mary Woronov & Paul Bartel were in "Rock & Roll High School". Mary Woronov and Robert Beltran were in "Night of the Comet" together. They were all three in "Eating Raoul".

The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.<br /><br />I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.<br /><br />The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.

I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.<br /><br />At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.<br /><br />Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.<br /><br />By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.<br /><br />I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.

I was impressed by the beautiful photography in this film, which was shot on location in Alaska. Although technically a melodrama, we see lots of activities Eskimos are involved in, such as hunting, dancing, building igloos, etc. And their customs, such as offering their wives to visitors, are routinely in the story. The hunting sequences were sometimes from stock footage, as it was easy to recognize some rear projection scenes of animals, but even these were fascinating. Spear fishing for salmon, hunting for walrus, caribou and even a polar bear and a whale made it seem like a documentary at times. There was no cast listing, which reinforced the documentary flavor. The film-makers tried to make it seem very authentic, with the natives speaking only in an Eskimo language that was either translated by someone on screen or by intertitles. The introduction stated that except for the white traders and the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, there were no actors in the film, but this was not strictly true. The two leading characters, played by Mala and Lotus Long, were Eskimos by birth, but were professional actors with credits for earlier films and you could see sometimes they had makeup on. But they were excellent in their roles and they went on to have Hollywood careers. All in all, the film is definitely worth a look.

I found this film to be extremely homophobic... the main character doesn't know he's gay until he realizes that he likes Barbra Streisand and has a limp wrist!!! I was so offended that after the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, I went up and spoke to the screen writer to complain about this film. This is the sort of film that GLAAD needs to work to have banned.

Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.

This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.<br /><br />It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.<br /><br />It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.<br /><br />Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.<br /><br />If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.<br /><br />It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this "life" thing, over and over for as long as we must.<br /><br />Tomorrow is another day.

This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top.

One of my favorite movies. I like horses, I like happy endings, and I like Walter Matthau. I miss him and am glad to have a great film like this to remind me why he was so wonderful. Watch it with your kids (or your horse).<br /><br />The story of an old hard boot horse trainer with kids, and down on his luck. If you have ever had or appreciated horse racing you will appreciate the rags to riches storyline. It may be a little below "Seabiscuit", but not a lot. The story is the same one, except it is the quarter horse version. Well acted, correct racing terms and equipment, and nice racing scenes. Don't take my word for it, get it and make up your own mind.

I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.<br /><br />But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.<br /><br />The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.<br /><br />I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.<br /><br />Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.<br /><br />I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.<br /><br />There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! <br /><br />A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.<br /><br />Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.<br /><br />These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.<br /><br />Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.

As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. <br /><br />I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.<br /><br />And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?<br /><br />The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.<br /><br />So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.<br /><br />

Contains Spoilers<br /><br />But if you weren't dropped on the head as a child and then used as a football then you'll agree with me that this is one of the worst and yet hilarious series ever made. Centreing round a woman who as a young girl was beaten by her father who also killed her mother, she spends her time drawing, but wait for it, then she becomes her superhero drawings and goes on to fight crime, therefore being "drawn by pain", so clever. The story itself is actually OK, but it's just how it's done, Jesse the writer and director has no idea how to write a script, just listen to a monologue featuring the 8 year old version of the hero and it sounds like it was written by a 30 year old man, while her dad, who sports a great moustache, just walks around the house all day while looking angry, just showing how bad the characterisation is, especially the bit where he gets angry in the first episode and begins repeating the phrase "no more" while holding his wife's head before killing her using the marble work surface. The following bang sound effect and just his terrible acting as all he can convey is angry just is brilliant, including after where he goes to beat his daughter using his belt which is all done with him moaning and looking angry in slow motion. The episodes themselves could contain easily a good clean script ranging over 5 minutes, but oh no Jesse doesn't want this. Little Jesse, is shitting out post modernism as if he'd just eaten Donnie Darko and then douched himself to death. Pointless camera jerks, all at weird angles, overly repeated lines and even pointless sequences just muddled up every now and again to fill the overlong episodes. In conclusion the idea isn't bad it's just how it's done, also there is a great character of a fat guy on a bench who doesn't come up enough and is great, i just wanna hug his Lil chubby cheeks cause they look so soft. The character development is non existent as the main character just says the first philosophical sounding thing that comes to her head although they all contradict one another. But all in all, mainly s**t<br /><br />Indiana Jones 4 however is much better, Type "Jeeharv" into you-tube as well, the results may make you weep at the beauty of the world also you'll hear a lot of cheap sex jokes, mostly gay ones.

You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.<br /><br />The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.<br /><br />Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.<br /><br />Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.<br /><br />After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.<br /><br />Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes – I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about – perhaps argue about – afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.<br /><br />I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.<br /><br />To everyone involved: bravo.

I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film.

Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!!

Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.<br /><br />Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better.

So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.<br /><br />The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.<br /><br />There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.<br /><br />Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.<br /><br />Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.<br /><br />The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.<br /><br />It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.<br /><br />The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.<br /><br />The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. *

This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.

Seriously, it had everything you could want in a movie, everything! Screw you scalawags who like Gone With The Winds, and screw you Titanic fans even harder! Tenacious reins supreme, forever and ever, amen!<br /><br />Climb upon my faithful steed, Then we gonna ride, gonna smoke some weed. Climb upon my big-freaking' steed, And ride, ride, ride.<br /><br />What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about, But it's good to go. What's the name of my girlfriend I don't know, But she's built like the best And she's good to go, go, She's good to go, She's good to go.<br /><br />We are fueled by Satan, Yes we're schooled by Satan. Fuelled by Satan! Writin' those tasty riffs just as fast as we can. Schooled by Satan!<br /><br />We were the inventors of the cosmic astral code. We've come to blow you away, We've come to blow your nose. We've come to freaking' blow, We've come to blow the show. We've come to freaking' blow, You know it, you know it!<br /><br />What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about But it's good to riddle-ah!<br /><br />I am not one of you. I come from an ancient time. I am known as The Kicker of Elves. I am also known as The Angel Crusher!<br /><br />Explosivo.

If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.

I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD!

Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.<br /><br />Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.<br /><br />Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.<br /><br />Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.

I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.<br /><br />Once the phrase "pound of flesh" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.<br /><br />OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.<br /><br />One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.

This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.<br /><br />The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.<br /><br />All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.<br /><br />FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!

If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.<br /><br />The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.<br /><br />The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of "investment" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.<br /><br />This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.

These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).

LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys. <br /><br />Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values. <br /><br />The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended. <br /><br />Grady Harp

David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.<br /><br />The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.<br /><br />The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.<br /><br />This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it.

A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.

In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of "Flash Gordon" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular "sleepovers" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.<br /><br />Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's "Ming the Merciless" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a "PERMA-TURD" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind

You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.

I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.<br /><br />If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.

If you're in the middle of a ferocious war and it's still not clear that you're going to come out on top, among the things you'll be concerned with is to keep up the morale of the civilians...to demonstrate that our troops have the bravery, the resourcefulness and the dedication to overcome all the odds in a noble cause. And that's just what director Anthony Asquith provided the British with 1943's naval war film, We Dive at Dawn. After more than 60 years, it's not surprising that some of the movie is dated. It doesn't help that the class stereotypes which help define the enlisted men from the officers can be jarring. Here, as in so many other British war films, the men invariably have thick regional working class accents while the officers speak with an educated fluency that would place them at home in England's finest ruling-class establishments. In this movie, Freddie Taylor (John Mills), the captain of the submarine Sea Tiger, is clever, confident, resourceful, aggressive, in control, good with his men, humorous with his peers, quick to make a decision. And it helps that he's lucky. His men are jolly tars, for the most part, competent at their jobs and always ready with a joke when things get tense. Although we spend the first third of the movie getting to know these people while they're on leave, after that things get tense quickly. <br /><br />Taylor and his sub are ordered to destroy the Brandenburg, a new German battleship. They just miss the ship when it enters the Kiel Canal and heads into the Baltic. Taylor assesses the risks and decides the Sea Tiger will go after it, through mine fields, anti-sub nets and with a real risk of not having enough fuel to return to home base. After several tense situations, the confrontation takes place. The Sea Tiger lets loose six torpedoes but has to dive, not knowing if it had done its job. After a clever subterfuge, Taylor outfoxes a couple of German destroyers but then realizes there is not enough fuel. He plans to scuttle his sub and surrender when, just at the last moment, James Hobson (Eric Portman), a seaman who had been sullen and a loner and who speaks German, says there is a small Danish coastal village that had been a fuel depot. He thinks it might still be for the Germans. The last third of the movie is a rousing action sequence as the crew of the sub attempts to hold off the Germans long enough to pump in enough fuel to get the Sea Tiger back to Britain. This is a wartime propaganda movie, so don't expect failure. And did the Sea Tiger actually put the Brandenburg down? Are the men reunited with their wives and sweethearts? Did Hobson have a reconciliation with his wife and small son that left him smiling for once? Did Freddie Taylor finally have a chance to make use of all those female names in his little black book? You'll have to see the movie. <br /><br />There are propaganda war movies and there are propaganda war movies. Some, like Powell's and Pressburger's One of Our Aircraft Is Missing and The 49th Parallel, still stand up to viewing today because the stories are solid and unexpected and the creators didn't use obvious shorthand clichés. Others, like We Dive at Dawn, were made with enough clichés that when watching we have to remind ourselves how dire the time was when the film was made. Still, Asquith can build a lot of suspense even with a few clichés. The Sea Tiger's forcing its way through a sub net was tense. The stalking of the Brandenburg and the plotting needed for the torpedo firing was realistic; John Mill's no-nonsense attitude while he prepared to attack was well-handled. The fake-out preparations to make the Sea Tiger look as if it had been destroyed by depth charges was as realistic, inside the sub as well as out, as you could hope for, and the battle for the fuel depot was dramatic and exciting. We Dive at Dawn is not a classic war film, but it's a well-made, well-acted example of its type and time. <br /><br />John Mills, it's worth noting, had a long, long career. Especially in the Fifties he played in a number of serious-minded films looking back at those WWII days. He had the quality of showing grit, cheerfulness and perseverance, but of also being trustworthy, a man England could be proud of as he fought the war. Top-billed in this movie was Eric Portman, a fine actor with a unique voice and the ability to give stares so cold you'd want to put on a sweater. Everyone on the sub is very much in the joking but stiff-upper-lip mode, but Portman manages some complexity for his character. Mills and Portman did fine jobs working together on this film.

This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. <br /><br />I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.<br /><br />The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.

I had just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5/30/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.

I am embarrassed to say that I missed "The Mother" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films.

"The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.<br /><br />I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.<br /><br />I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.

If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.

I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.<br /><br />You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".

Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.<br /><br />WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.<br /><br />I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!

My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!<br /><br />See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!<br /><br />See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).<br /><br />Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF Skinner<br /><br />Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.<br /><br />For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.

Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.

i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.<br /><br />overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.<br /><br />overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.

Monarch Cove was one of the best Friday night's drama shown in a long time.I am asking the writer to please write a long series and air it on Lifetime, SOON.Each person was very interesting and did a wonderful job with their lines to make the plot come true. However, the movie needs to continue for a long time. I would love to see Bianca and Jake's child grow-up and get a major role in the movie, along with the new grandparents planning for her educational future. Also, bring kathy back to see her niece and help foster her life.It was great seeing the grandparents work out their problems, but the family business needed to be restored to working status,and let us see how Jake and Bianca survive through the marriage years.

Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.<br /><br />It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help. <br /><br />"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.<br /><br />All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko". <br /><br />While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.<br /><br />"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.

Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.<br /><br />This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.<br /><br />Blah. Blah. Blah.<br /><br />This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.<br /><br />There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.<br /><br />But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.<br /><br />In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.<br /><br />Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.<br /><br />That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.<br /><br />But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.<br /><br />Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.

Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.

Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.<br /><br />Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.<br /><br />If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.

Daddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be… home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local "Grand Ball of the Black and Tans" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo… <br /><br />Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from "The Girls and Daddy". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the "Black and Tans" ball. "Biograph Girls" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later "Griffith Girls" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in "Orphans of the Storm" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing. <br /><br />*** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee

"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.

I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. <br /><br />But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! <br /><br />Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.<br /><br />Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!<br /><br />Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. <br /><br />And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.

Hail Bollywood and men Directors !<br /><br />Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!<br /><br />Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!<br /><br />Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !<br /><br />Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!<br /><br />Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!<br /><br />SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !<br /><br />He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!

This movie was over-shadowed by 'The Jackal' (Bruce Willis, Richard Gere) which was released the same year. Having seen both films, I can honestly say this is the superior film.<br /><br />Granted, the production value of 'The Jackal' was very good, it probably had a substantially bigger budget. However, 'The Assignment' is well written and has a fascinating story. Aiden Quinn is flawless in dual roles. Aiden Quinn and director Christian Duguay did a great job of establishing a deep and multi-layered relationship between the title character and his family. I particularly liked the ending.<br /><br />I was reminded of the Jack Ryan character in the Tom Clancy movies. Both are Naval officers thrown into unbelievably dangerous roles as they covertly work on behalf of National security. And yet, both Harrison Ford and Aidan Quinn reveal their respective characters as heros who manage to be both virile and gentle. They have a genuine tenderness and vulnerability in their relationships with their families. <br /><br />What I don't understand is how the opinions of all who have posted on this movie (myself included) can be so much more positive than the luke-warm reception the film has received. This is a movie that has enough complexity and subtlety that it remains compelling after multiple viewings. If you are a fan of espionage-genre films, I recommend 'The Assignment' enthusiastically.

The 1978 adaptation had all the ingredients of a potentially wonderful film. It is based on an absolutely charming book by Charles Kingsley. It has a truly talented cast from the likes of James Mason, Bernard Cribbons and David Tomblinson, not to mention the vocal talents of David Jason and Jon Pertwee. There is also Lionel Jeffries, the director of wonderful classics such as The Railway Children and the Amazing Mr Blunden, and while the film is good on the most part, it was also a little disappointing. I had no problem with the performances, particularly those of Mason and Tomblinson as Grimes and Sir John Harriet respectively, and Tommy Pender and Samantha Gates are believable as Tom and Ellie. The voice cast is also commendable, especially Jon Pertwee, voicing charming characters in their own right. I also liked the incidental music it is so haunting and beautiful, and the script was fairly faithful and in general well-written, particularly at the beginning. The characters, especially the Water Babies are very charming, and the villains are sinister and funny at the same time, I loved the part when Tom and his friends help the Water Babies escape, seeing the shark chasing the electric eel with an axe was very funny. However, I will say the film does look dated, especially the animation sequences, the live action parts weren't so bad, if you forgive the rather dark camera-work. The character animation was rather flat, and the backgrounds sometimes were a little dull, though there were some nice moments, like the scene with the Krakon and of course the first meeting with the Water Babies. I also had mixed feelings about the songs, the Water Babies's song was beautiful, but I found the first song forgettable, when Tom ends up underwater. Hi-Cockallorum is an example of a song, that is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. I personally don't know what to make of this song, it was fun to listen to at first, but once it's in your head, it is perhaps annoying. As much as I like Lionel Jeffries and his films, his direction just lacked the wonder and the magic it usually does. All in all, certainly not a terrible film, but could have been better artistically. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).<br /><br />Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.<br /><br />So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10

I found this to be an entertaining account of the challenges an independent film maker might encounter (something I never even thought about). The film managed to keep my interest the entire time and I actually laughed out loud more than once! I'm not a film maker so I know nothing about the technology but I though it was well edited and flowed smoothly telling the story. As a disclaimer, I contributed to this effort after the fact providing music for the soundtrack but I was not involved in the creation of this film and I could not tell you a thing about Repo Man except that I remembered seeing it way back when (I'm not really a sci-fi fiend). I enjoyed the comparisons the film made of punk rock file making to punk rock music. My wife went with me to see the film and she did not know a thing about it before hand and we had a great time.

Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.

I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work.

The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.<br /><br />The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.<br /><br />Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...<br /><br />This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.<br /><br />Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.<br /><br />Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.

My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.<br /><br />Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.<br /><br />The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.<br /><br />To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.<br /><br />Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.<br /><br />I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.<br /><br />Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.<br /><br />All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.

An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!!

To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?

This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage.

What a brilliant film. I will admit it is very ambitious, with the subject matter. At a little over two and a half hours, it is a very long film too. But neither of these pointers are flaws in any way. Cry Freedom, despite the minor flaws it may have, is a powerful, moving and compelling film about the story of the black activist Steve Biko in his struggles to awaken South Africa to the horrors of the apartheid. It is true, that the first half is stronger than the second in terms of emotional impact. People have also complained that the film suffers from too much Woods not enough Biko. I may be wrong, but although it is Biko's story, it is told in the perspective of Woods, so Woods is an important character in conveying Biko's story to the world.<br /><br />Cry Freedom visually looks amazing. With the show-stopping cinematography and the stunning South African scenery it was a visual feast. The opening scenes especially were brilliantly shot. George Fenton's music brought real dramatic weight to most scenes. It was subtle in scenes in the second half, but stirring and dramatic in the crowd scenes. The script was of exceptional quality, the courtroom scenes with Biko were enough to really make you think wow this is real quality stuff. The first half with Biko as the main focus constantly had something to feel emotional about, whether it was the police's attack of the South African citizens or Biko's death. The second half entirely about Donald Woods carries less of an emotional punch, but is compensated by how it is shot, performed and written. And there are parts that are genuinely suspenseful as well. <br /><br />The performances were exceptional from the entire cast, from the most minor character to the two leads, there wasn't a single bad performance. Regardless of the accents that is, but it is forgiven so easily by how much the performances draw you in. Denzel Washington in one of his more understated performances, gives a truly compelling performance as Biko, and Kevin Kline shows that he can be as good at drama as he is at comedy, for he gave a suitably subtle performance to match that of Washington's. And the two men's chemistry is believable and never strikes a false note. Penelope Wilton is lovely as Donald's wife Wendy, and she is a great actress anyway. Out the supporting performances, and there may be some bias, two stood out for me. One was Timothy West, who relishes his role as Captain DeWet. The other was the ever exceptional John Thaw in a brilliantly chilling cameo-role as Kruger. Lord Richard Attenborough's direction is focused and constantly sensitive as usual.<br /><br />Overall, a truly wonderful film. Ambitious and long it is, but never ceases to be compelling, powerful and achingly moving. A definite winner from Lord Richard Attenborough, and worthy of a lot more praise. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.

"The Mother" is a weird low-budget movie, touching at least two uncomfortable themes not usually explored in the cinema: denial of love of mother for their own son and daughter, and lust and passion in the third age.<br /><br />The characters are awful: May is a disgusting old lady and I believe it is impossible to feel any kind of sympathy or sorrow for her. She confesses that she did not love her son and her daughter. She cheated her husband twice with an intellectual. She steals the beloved man of her daughter, not to protect her from a guy without moral, that does not love her, but just because she feel horny with him. She is trying to organize her life after the loss of her husband in the worst possible way, destroying her daughter delusions. Paula, her daughter, is a fragile loser, who accepts her life the way it is. Her brother Bobby is a man who lost his savings because of his wife, who insists in having her shop, a terrible business indeed. Darren is an amoral addicted jerk who does not like anybody, even himself.<br /><br />The acting and direction are excellent: the actresses and actors have outstanding performances and the direction is very precise. I liked this movie, but I recognize that it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Recomeçar" ("Re-Start")

A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.

Only Connery could bring that particular style with a line like that… Fatima crashes into Bond's arms when she water-skis up to the super agent in Nassau and apologizes, 'Oh, how reckless of me. I made you all wet.' The super agent replies, 'Yes, but my martini is still dry.'<br /><br />Barbara Carrera makes a great villain, stealing the show as SPECTRE executioner Fatima Blush… Fatima is number 12 in the SPECTRE chain of command, and is a gorgeous assassin who takes intense sensations of pleasure in killing… <br /><br />Fatima assumes all the deadly characteristics of Fiona, proving to be one of Bond's toughest adversaries… She is a victim of her vanity… She's good at what she does, and wants the world to know it… But her vanity is her downfall… Using every possible approach to eliminate 007, Fatima is a wild and cunning woman who makes love to the man she is about to kill… <br /><br />Austrian actor Klaus-María Brandauer (Largo) does not make a very formidable opponent for 007… Referred to as number one in the SPECTRE chain of command, Largo resides in the Bahamas, and travels aboard his super yacht, the Flying Saucer… <br /><br />Max Von Sydow becomes the fourth actor to appear as SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, once more plotting to put the world at ransom… <br /><br />Kim Basinger takes the part once owned by the lovely French actress Claudine Auger… She is Domino, the mistress of Largo, who soon falls deeply in love with her rescuer… <br /><br />Black actor Bernie Casey becomes the sixth actor to play CIA agent Felix Leiter after Jack Lord, Cec Linder, Rik Van Nutter, Norman Burton, and David Hedison...<br /><br />Edward Fox portrays the new, unsympathetic 'M.' Pamela Salem is the third actress to play Miss Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was the first and Barbara Bouchet was the second.<br /><br />Valerie Leon is the sexy lady in the Bahamas who fished 007 out of the blue water and saved his life by making love to him in her own room… Valerie was the Sardinian hotel receptionist in 'The Spy Who loved Me' when Bond and Anya arrive seeking Stromberg…<br /><br />Prunella Gee is Shrublands physical therapist Patricia… Saskia Cohen Tanugi is Nicole, Bond's Secret Service contact in the South of France… <br /><br />Gavan O'Herlihy is Jack Petachi, the U.S. Air Force communications officer who duplicates the President of the United States' 'eye print' and arms two cruise missiles with nuclear warheads… <br /><br />Rowan Atkinson is the bumbling foreign officer Nigel Small-Fawcett; and Alec McCowen is Algernon, the armorer who provides 007 some formidable items… <br /><br />If you like to see Connery playing a tense battle of wills, disguised as a masseur, attacked by robot-controlled sharks, giving away a considerable amount of money for a tango dance, thrown into a medieval dungeon, don't miss this second of only two "unofficial" James Bond films…

(Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.)<br /><br />I just watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it, my rating 10 / 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase.

Excellent episode movie ala Pulp Fiction. 7 days - 7 suicides. It doesnt get more depressing than this. Movie rating: 8/10 Music rating: 10/10

My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.<br /><br />This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.<br /><br />One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.<br /><br />Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.

I don't usually comment on films since I am in the movie distribution business, but I have to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting is fantastic and the script is even better. There were no cheesy speeches or exploitation of handicapped people to try and make this movie more "Hollywood". James McAvoy is such an outstanding actor, I could not look away from him if I tried. I was impressed with Steven Robertson as well. I cannot believe this is his first real film. Brenda Fricker plays a small role, but as usual, she is outstanding. This is a movie for everyone to see just how lucky we all are. If you like Awakenings and Mask, you will enjoy this story. You owe it to yourself to check this film out.

An interesting movie based on three of Jules Verne's novels. Considering the special effects and computer enhanced animation of today, this movie stands as an historic marker of cinematic resourcefulness and imagination. Karel Zeman has brought to life the lithographic images of the original Jules Verne texts. this is a must see for classic science fiction and history buffs.<br /><br />I give this movie 9 out of 10. Enjoy!!

When I saw the elaborate DVD box for this and the dreadful Red Queen figurine, I felt certain I was in for a big disappointment, but surprise, surprise, I loved it. Convoluted nonsense of course and unforgivable that such a complicated denouement should be rushed to the point of barely being able to read the subtitles, let alone take in the ridiculous explanation. These quibbles apart, however, the film is a dream. Fabulous ladies in fabulous outfits in wonderful settings and the whole thing constantly on the move and accompanied by a wonderful Bruno Nicolai score. He may not be Morricone but in these lighter pieces he might as well be so. Really enjoyable with lots of colour, plenty of sexiness, some gory kills and minimal police interference. Super.