Datasets:

enoreyes

/

imdb_3000_sphere

like 1

What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.

My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10

It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.<br /><br />The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!<br /><br />The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts.

I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.

This is one of my all time favorite movies and I would recommend it to anyone. On my list of favorite movies (mental list, mind) the only ones on par with it are movies such as The Lord of the Rings series, Spirited Away and Fly Away Home.<br /><br />I can really relate to the main character Jess. At the start of the movie she's a shy girl with a slightly odd background who has a lot more friends who are boys than that are girls. She really sucks you into her life. I also certainly can't fault any of the protagonist's acting, or anyone else's in the film.<br /><br />The soccer was interesting to watch even for someone like me who has no idea of the rules. The movie is never boring. The romance is really cute and didn't make me blush tooooo hard! One thing that really made it though was the Indian factor. Jess' parents are Indian and there are many colourful Indian conventions throughout the film providing a very interesting cultural insight as well as everything else. The Indian people are also hilarious! Essentially this is a coming of age film about choosing the path you want and fighting for it.<br /><br />Feel good comedies are becoming my favorite movie genre thanks to this film. They're funny, they're refreshing and they make you feel good! ^_~

I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.<br /><br />-R

This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.<br /><br />A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.<br /><br />While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.<br /><br />A creepy film; worth seeing!

This animation has a very simple and straightforward good vs. evil plot and is all about action. What sets it apart from other animation is how well the human movements are animated. It was really beautiful seeing the fleeing woman running around on the screen from left to right and look around, her movements were done so well. Why don't they use this rotoscopic technique more these days? It's quite effective.<br /><br />Fire and Ice, in it's prehistoric setting and scarcely dressed women, was clearly devoted to showing the beautiful damsel in distress in various sexy ways, her voluptuous body serving as pure eyecandy. Some may hate this and regard it as yet another moronic male sexual fantasy, others (including plenty of women) will adore it's esthetic quality. I for sure did not mind! Bakshi just loves animating lushious, voluptuous babes, as can also be seen in Cool World, and I don't think he has to apoligize since it's pretty much animation for adults. But I had also enjoyed this animation as a child and I never forgot it.<br /><br />This one was just special, so different from the standard Disney or Anime fare, and for that reason alone well worth the watch since it's possibly Bakshi's finest. For those who like animations with lushious women: try Space Adventure Cobra as well.<br /><br />I give Fire and Ice 8 out of 10.

My ratings: Acting - 3/10 Suspense - 2/10 Character Attachment - 1/10 Plot - 2/10 Character Development - 2/10 Overall - 2/10<br /><br />This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting/performance, good plot, direction, character development/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.

I am not a Faulkner fan (which is considered sacrilegious, especially since I grew up near the author's hometown); however, I think this is an excellent movie. On par with the quality of the movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird". If you haven't seen it, buy it anyway. It's well worth having in your permanent collection. TCM recently played the movie as a part of the Race on Film series. I wish they'd play it more often. Very moving.<br /><br />On a side note, the folks from Oxford, Mississippi, will also enjoy seeing the footage of the town square as it was back in the 1940's. The Courthouse, City Hall, etc.: They're all on screen. I never knew the movie was filmed there until I noticed the familiarity of the buildings. When I saw the arch in the front of City Hall, I began to get suspicious. Look closely at the pennants on Chick's wall: You'll see two for Ole Miss !

Chinese Ghost Story III is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. The film delivers the spell-casting special effects that one can expect, but fails painfully on all other fronts. The actors all play extremely silly caricatures. You have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. The plot is predictable, and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. Towards the end, the movie begins to resemble old Godzilla films, including shabby larger-than-life special effects and a (well, yet another) ghost with a Godzilla head. Maybe I would have grinned if I was expecting camp.<br /><br />It is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with - in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. They won't be able to do it again: the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.

I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.

If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.<br /><br />The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)<br /><br />

The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.

First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. <br /><br />I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. <br /><br />My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. <br /><br />My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."<br /><br />And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!<br /><br />To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.

This is one of the best TV productions of a musical ever. I have heard the Merman cast album, the Angela Lansbury album, I have seen Tyne Daly live, and I've seen the Rosalind Russell movie countless times. I think Bette is if not the best, then tied with the best. She captures not just the bravura, but also the pathos of Mama Rose. I was never a Natalie Wood fan, so I really enjoyed Cynthia Gibb, in what is arguably her best role. Everything from the costumes to the sets to the supporting performances is wonderful. The three strippers, led by the always-dependable Christine Ebersole are hard to top. There was supposed to be a TV production of Mame a few years back, with Cher, but I think Bette would be the best bet (pun intended) for Auntie Mame.

I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.<br /><br />The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.<br /><br />While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.<br /><br />It was a complete waste of my time.

Is it a perfect movie? No. It is a weird adaptation from a sci-fi book and it features vampires from space, naked beauties and the British army efficiency.<br /><br />When I first saw this movie I was rather young and all I can remember is the feeling of awe for the movie and Mathilda May. Actually, if it weren't for this gorgeous lady being naked the whole movie, I probably wouldn't have rated it so high, but given her sheer magnificence, I am now actually considering voting it up!<br /><br />Lucky for me I got reminded of the movie and watched it again now. Imagine Raiders of the Lost Ark or Poltergeist special effects splattered unto a rather decent sci-fi story, but with completely over the top performances. I still enjoyed the movie tremendously (as well as Mathilda May), but it was a mixture of nostalgia, comparing with the crap movies they make today and actually wanting more when it ended.<br /><br />Bottom line: if you are a sci-fi fan you are not allowed to miss this movie. Oh, and did I mention Mathilda May is young, beautiful and naked?

Overall I was rather impressed with the pilot. The initial first fifteen minutes were worrying, as it did feel the creators were trying to create a science fiction version of The O.C but this fear is rectified when a terrorist incident occurs and from here the show steps into themes and situations that I very rarely see television tackle.<br /><br />BSG dealt with themes such as monotheism, existentialism, reality, death and terrorism but they were primarily subtext, there for the viewer to contemplate on or ignore if they so choose. Here on the other hand these subjects are the focus of the show and I personally found myself evoking such works as Ghost In The Shell and The Matrix as reference points while watching and being surprised by how well the themes were being discussed. I think if you are a fan of the two I just mentioned or other films/television shows, which deal with the subjects I referenced, I think you will find at least something here.<br /><br />In terms of a starting point to explain how the situation we know in BSG came about I believe they handled it in a very interesting way, I especially liked how they explained where the Cylon's belief in one God came from and the creation of Caprica had just enough advanced and contemporary technology thrown in to make it appear in the future but not completely alien to us as viewers.<br /><br />The only real weak points I noticed were the relationship between the Greystone parents and the actress who plays 'Lacy Rand'. While I like Eric Stoltz and Paula Malcomson individually, together their scenes seemed to lack chemistry, at this point it could simply be down to developing their characters, but this is something I think needs work. I also found Magda Apanowicz to be unconvincing in her role. This again could be down to experience and time needed to develop, but throughout the episode her acting appeared forced and not completely confident.<br /><br />Based on the pilot I greatly look forward to seeing where 'Caprica' goes in the future and hopefully it will touch the greatness that BSG once did.

I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.<br /><br />Nathaniel Purez

I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...<br /><br />Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).<br /><br />The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.<br /><br />The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of "backstory" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!<br /><br />I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you...

one of the best ensemble acted films I've ever seen. There isn't much to the plot, but the acting- incredible. You see the characters change ever so subtly, undr the influence of the rented villa in Italy, and love. And happiness. The film casts a mesmerizing spell on you, much as the villa does on all the women. Truly "enchanted".

I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me. <br /><br />When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days.

Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.<br /><br />Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.<br /><br />However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? <br /><br />To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.<br /><br />Ask yourself if you have a soul.<br /><br />Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.

You cannot deny that we have an affinity for speed. That's why movies like Fast and the Furious, Dhoom, Rempit get made to play to the satisfaction of audiences, especially local ones. We live on a tiny island, and I cannot fathom why, for the relative efficiency of the public transportation system, most of us want to get into debt by owning a set of wheels which come with 100% tax when they reach our shores, and the myriad of taxes and bills to pay when operating one. Not only that, the high end sports cars were once quipped by a prominent politician up north that they will never reach fourth gear, lest they reach the sea.<br /><br />And these movies are relatively easy to make. Hot wheels and hot chicks always go down well together in targeting the required demographic. For once, those plunging necklines exposing uncanny buxom and short skirts accentuating legs two meters long, can't compete with the attention given to those beautiful curves that exotic cars possess in movies such as these. Of course there are amongst us (ahem) those that go for the sexists portrayal of women as mere sexual objects (otherwise explain why motor shows come with truckloads of models, and movies such as these cannot do without a leggy model in a frame), however, they don't warrant the kind of collective orgasmic sighs whenever the four wheelers come on screen, even when they do exactly nothing and have their gears into Park. The guy sitting beside me, I swear he wet his pants every time his dream car(s) appear, and creamed his pants even more when he hears those growling engine moans.<br /><br />So there we have it, the fan boys who turned up in droves just to watch which of the latest cool cars get featured in the movie. With the Fast and the Furious franchise, the Japanese models like the Evos and the Skylines take centerstage, as does the GT. Here, the Ford GT takes on an incredibly drool-worthy facade modification, that even I'm impressed, alongside the latest models like the Ferrari Enzos, Porshe Carerra GTs, Koenigsegg CCXs, and every car out there that has wings for doors. But seriously, my heart goes out to the cars each time they're mercilessly wrecked just for entertainment. I mean, this are perfectly fine, high performance models that are at the apex of motoring, but yet because whoever financed the movie had millions to blow, they do so because they can,<br /><br />There's no story in Redline, just excuses to put together a movie full of beauties (the cars that is) that can rip down the tarmac in probably the most boring fashion possible, and with the usual shots of pedals (always the accelerator, mind you, tapping the brake pedal is tantamount to blasphemy, and earn you no respect), steering wheels, gear shifts (always shifting up and not down), all these while having the actors make pretend that they're the baddest asses with an engine, snarling and giving each other dirty looks. Not a very tall order for an actor, and that's why we get the most woeful performances ever, with lines that seem to be written by elementary schoolkids.<br /><br />The heroine (yes, it made a statement that girls can drive) Natasha (a very plasticky looking Nadia Bjorlin) is one of those million dollar finds - a girl with model looks who don't mind getting down on fours and immersed in oil, who has racing pedigree within her, and performs with a rock band singing songs with lyrics that are just plain laughable (every line had to do with cars, and when singing about love, just had to string those innuendos like shifting gear shafts, lubricants and going for rides). Introduced against her wishes to illegal racing by a gangsta called Infamous (Eddie Griffin), she gets drawn into family squabbles involving a Leo DiCaprio lookalike Iraq war veteran, and some sleazy lecherous looking rich uncle. Everything else, well like I said, just serves as an excuse for the movie to go from race to race.<br /><br />And it's almost always the same, as there's very limited to what you can do to heighten tension between race cars, especially when you know the race is rigged (for narrative reasons) and can see the race outcome a mile away from the finishing line. While Fast and Furious had quite charismatic actors, and I will put my head on the chopping block by naming Paul Walker, Sun Kang, and of course, the star it created - Vin Diesel, Redline had none, just pretty faces with lots of air unfortunately. It looks like a TV movie in its treatment from the get go, with a very insipid opening sequence where it's one man, one car, and a 105 minutes race against time to get to Vegas.<br /><br />If not for the cars, then this movie seriously is a piece of junk, with bad acting, bad lines and bad action. Strictly for the car fans, or those who like their movies with countless of bevy beauties who pimp their bodies without any speaking lines.

Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.

Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still "Hot" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few "jumps" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.

Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.<br /><br />The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.

"Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.<br /><br />Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.<br /><br />The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.<br /><br />In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.<br /><br />The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10

<br /><br />I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.<br /><br />**spoiler**<br /><br />Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.

I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.

Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've seen something special.(7/10)

I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end.

DOCTEUR PETIOT, starring Michel Serrault, is a brutal story about a brutal man. A doctor who heals the sick in occupied France, even if their ability to compensate is not there. Yet, he preys on the weakest amidst the populace. The imagery and cinematography are superb, and lend an additional macabre feeling to this complex story. He is the perfect psychopath. Seductive and altruistic, intelligent and caring, calculating and murderous. A movie certain not to be forgotten soon by the viewer. Kudos to Mr. Serrault, for his chilling portrayal.

I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.<br /><br />While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.

This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.

What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!

Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.

Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.<br /><br />A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.<br /><br />In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.<br /><br />There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.<br /><br />Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.<br /><br />One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.<br /><br />4/10

OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films.

If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).<br /><br />In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.<br /><br />A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it!

An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)

The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.<br /><br />The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.<br /><br />The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).<br /><br />That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.<br /><br />The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.

I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10

I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi

"I presume you are here for damage to your mental circuitry." - VAL<br /><br />Mike Nelson made me watch this...he mentioned it in his book, "Movie Megacheese." I asked myself, "Why would Mike Nelson steer me wrong?" I now know why the bots never trusted Mike Nelson.<br /><br />The music is by John Williams, which is probably part of his payment to the Devil. In fact, I'm sure anyone who worked on this movie is probably in league with ol' Slewfoot, or is now cursed, from the Executive Director down to the guy who ran the catering truck outside the studio. Don't watch...for the love of God...don't watch!!! Not even making a copy and showing someone else will un-curse you...I'm doomed now, I understand this. I accept this. But save yourself...

This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.<br /><br />But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.

This is a movie that i can watch over and over and never ever get tired of it, it has lot's of laughs, guns, action, crime,, good one liners, and a decent plot, with an over the top, Donald Sutherland in a rather comedic role as an Assasain. Tia Carerra looks as hot as she ever did and can act too, Thomas Ian Griffin is great in this as the lead character "Max" a DEA agent Diane is the FBI agent, played by Carerra, and John Lithgow from Frazier on TV, plays the bad guy,, "Livingston". The plot centers around Max and Diane trying to capture Livingston while they fight and argue with each other about who gets the money for the respective agencies, throw into the mix the Assassain Sutherland, who pretty much has all the good one liners, this is the perfect crime caper, there is the usual love story,, but played very differently than you would think by Carerra and Griffith. You also have the Russian mafia, Italian Mafia, and Chineese Mafia here thrown into the mix,, the film is shot in Boston,, where you have some great shots , and locals,, great photography and music in this film, this movie is just the epitome of a crime comedy,, it has everything that one could ever want. Check out Sutherland's toilet in a particular scene,, very unusual. this film is a riot and will make you laugh real hard 10 plus for me.

If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked.

Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.<br /><br />A well cared production.<br /><br />My rate: 7/10

A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.<br /><br />It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".<br /><br />As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".<br /><br />For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.

I was expecting a lot from Mr.Amitabh Bachan's role of SARKAR, but am disappointed. Being a Ram Gopal Verma's direction i was not ready for this kind of a movie. Sarkar is supposed to be a strong character, but the movie shows that Amitabh is too dependent on others power rather than his. There is a movie in Tamil called Nayakan based on the theme of GOD FATHER and Kamala Hassan has played the lead. The movie is well directed and the power till the end remains in the hands of Kamala Hassan, not his son. Amitabh Bachan seems to be too helpless in the movie and he just accepts everything instead of changing things. The movie fails to show the strong impact of God Father.

A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.<br /><br />Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.<br /><br />It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.<br /><br />(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)<br /><br />The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.<br /><br />Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.<br /><br />The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares.

This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.

If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.<br /><br />The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.<br /><br />I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.<br /><br />Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.

I went to see "Passion of Mind" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. "Sliding Doors," "Me, Myself, I," etc. <br /><br />But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.<br /><br />The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.<br /><br />There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.<br /><br />(originally written 5/28/2000)

I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.<br /><br />It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealed<br /><br />I would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.<br /><br />The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?<br /><br />On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that "Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see." That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.<br /><br />I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.<br /><br />Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!<br /><br />Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as "just another sequel") to trash the movie such as "This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!" then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.<br /><br />

Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay – not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.<br /><br />There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading…

This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.<br /><br />It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.<br /><br />The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.<br /><br />The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.<br /><br />The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.<br /><br />All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.<br /><br />7/10

So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever.

What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.<br /><br />The best part of the whole movie was the song "Ishq Kamina", and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap.

{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}<br /><br />The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.<br /><br />In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).

As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years! <br /><br />I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.<br /><br />Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.<br /><br />Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.

This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.<br /><br />Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.<br /><br />Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!

I remember watching this series avidly, every Saturday evening. It was the highlight of the week. I loved everything about it, the location, the costumes, the actors and the wonderful music by Clannad (I still have their Legend album). I loved the way they solved the problem of Michael Praed leaving by creating another Robin, this time the Earl of Huntingdon. I believe there were legends of several Robins in medieval times. Another thing I loved was the fact that it was filled with young actors, I'm sure Robin and his men would have young, after all people didn't live that long in those days. Other Robins always look too old (Kevin Costner with his ridiculous accent looked like Robin's granddad). The only sad thing was the ending, it's a shame they couldn't at least have done a one off special to tie up all the loose ends and give it a happier ending.

I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour. <br /><br />Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.

Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.<br /><br />(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's "amazing" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)<br /><br />Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.<br /><br />That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the "star power" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was "of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!," a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the "cuteness" of the child characters.<br /><br />And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, "Ponyo" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like "The Little Mermaid"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.<br /><br />But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination. <br /><br />Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.<br /><br />In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will "remember him fondly." And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical "bad guy." Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a "bad person." All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters. <br /><br />And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like. <br /><br />In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family.

Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young.

I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.<br /><br />I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.<br /><br />7/10

I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.

For those out there that like to think of themselves as reasonably intelligent human beings, who love film, have good attention to detail and enjoy indie movies with funny, smartly written dialogue then this is a film for you.<br /><br />For those with a poor attention span, high expectations and no brains.. well.. um.. you may get bored and find things dragging at times.<br /><br />This is a charming, modest and well paced movie with the actors bestowing a real sense of depth and warmth to their roles. I chuckled to myself pretty much the whole way through..<br /><br />This film is a little gem.

THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.

I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.

1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.

Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!<br /><br />It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!<br /><br />A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.<br /><br />But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!

The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.<br /><br />I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as "who's on first" which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that "who's on first" had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.<br /><br />Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?!

I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.<br /><br />If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.<br /><br />Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?

First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.<br /><br />This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.<br /><br />Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.<br /><br />Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.

This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.

The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.

I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...

Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a "jollies" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.<br /><br />The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.<br /><br />Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.<br /><br />In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it.

I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!

This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.

I read the book and saw the movie. Both excellent. The movie is diamond among coals during this era. Liebman and Selby dominate the screen and communicate the intensity of their characters without flaw. This film should have made them stars. Shame on the studio for not putting everything they had behind this film. It could have easily been a franchise. Release on DVD is a must and a worthy remake would revive this film. Look for it in your TV guide and if you see it listed, no matter how late, watch it. You won't be disappointed. Do yourself another favor - read the book (same title). It'll blow you away. Times have changed dramatically since those days, or at least we like to think they have.

A drifter looking for a job is mistaken for a hit man in a small Wyoming town, leading to all kinds of complications. Cage is perfectly cast as the unlucky schmuck hoping to make a quick buck and get out of town but finding he can't escape the title town. Hopper does what he does best, playing a psycho known as "Lyle from Dallas," the real hit man. Walsh as a crooked sheriff and Boyle as a femme fatale round out the fine cast. The script by brothers John and Rick Dahl contains delicious twists and turns, and John's direction creates a terrific "neo noir" atmosphere. Witty and very entertaining, it sucks the viewer in from the start and never lets up.

I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting.

Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.<br /><br />The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.<br /><br />In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.<br /><br />Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.<br /><br />Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny.

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!

OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the "characters" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.

I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.<br /><br />It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black<br /><br />Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. <br /><br />''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now''

Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!<br /><br />Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.

As is often the case when you attempt to take a 400 plus page book and cram it into a two hour film, a lot is lost. Here director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) takes on an extremely ambitious project and almost pulls it off. What we get is a charming and emotionally compelling film that seems somehow incomplete.<br /><br />There is much about this film that is wonderful and fantastic. The cinematography by John Toll (Cinematographer for Braveheart and Legends of the Fall, winning Oscars for both) is splendid. Working with Madden, the choices for locations on the Greek island of Kefallonia are superb and the visual images that come from photographing these majestic locations in varying light are lush and beautiful. Madden also uses numerous Greek actors as the townspeople, giving the town an authentic feel. The soundtrack is also terrific and the mandolin passages and vocals by the Italian soldiers are marvelous.<br /><br />Madden does an excellent job of bringing us the Italian occupation and the romance, which take up the greater part of the film. There are numerous sweet and funny moments throughout this segment. However, by the time the serious battle drama is ready to unfold, there isn't much film left in the reel and this component is extremely rushed and abbreviated. While the battle scenes are well done, subsequent to the battle it is obvious that increasingly greater compromises are being made to keep the film from running too long. By the time we reach the post war scenes, the treatment is merely skeletal. Another negative is that the DVD is particularly sparse on features.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage is charming in the romantic lead as the sentimental Captain who seems to have joined the army to sing rather than fight. When fight he must, Cage switches gears seamlessly into a man of fierce principle and resolve and somehow remains believable in both personas.<br /><br />Penelope Cruz, whom the camera loves, gives an uninspired performance as Pelagia. In part this is because Cage so dominates the screen, but Cruz just seems too placid in a part that should be emotionally torrential and dynamic. She allows the character to be objectified as Corelli's love interest rather than establishing her as a powerful character in her own right.<br /><br />John Hurt gives a fantastic performance as the wise old doctor, who knows as much about human nature as medicine. However, Christian Bale seems a bit overwrought and stiff as Pelagia's fiancé.<br /><br />I rated this film an 8/10. Despite some drawbacks, this is a touching film that is well worth seeing. The photography alone is worth the price of admission.

My father grew grew up watching George Reeves as Superman and when I was a little kid he had episodes on VHS and let me view them including this movie (passing them down in the family if you will), and I loved it.<br /><br />Clark Kent and Lois Lane get sent to a small town with and oil mine and from the mine emerge mole men radioactive and targeted by the town assumed to be deadly and it's up to Superman to stop this mayhem.<br /><br />It's just so wonderful and fun to view. The old style special effects and sound - the crew pulled off such a beauty with such little technology. George Reeves was my hero when I was a little kid, and I'm 16 now, it just goes to show how timeless and classic these adventures are.

This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel!

I read the book before watching the movie and it left me emotionally drained but I felt that it truly transported me to Afghanistan, a culture I know very little about. I had great hopes for this movie and it did not disappoint. I watched this with someone who didn't read the book and he also enjoyed it. They had to shorten some things in the movie but it was a well acted and well shot film. It leaves you thinking about the movie long after it is over. You feel for the characters and their plights. I highly recommend this movie to those who like emotionally draining drama and want to experience Afghani culture. There are some disturbing scenes not suitable for children to watch. It is a heavy drama depicting the horrors of life under a restrictive regime.

Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.<br /><br />My Grade: D-

In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home but it's also nice to see a cop/action/drama that takes place somewhere other than NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the 2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God REAL ACTION!)<br /><br />If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt Reynolds movie with "Every Which Way But Loose" & "Any Which Way You Can" then Burt responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great!

I have watched Love Jones over thirty times. It is one of the rare films that depict a love story about people who happen to be African-Americans. The dialogue was realistically written, and delivered with honesty. It was so nice to see a film where the story line centered on young professional African-Americans. This is virtually an untapped market. Love Jones was visually captivating as well. The chemistry between Lorenz Tate and Nia Long will bring memories of past and present love. The feeling of the film is jazz and blues, and brings to mine the sensuality of a warm creamy hot chocolate with a splash of Kahlua and Butterscotch. If you hadn't guessed, I loved it!

The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.<br /><br />It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.<br /><br />The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.<br /><br />Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.<br /><br />I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10