Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

This movie stinks majorly. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because the graphics were semi charming. It's total disregard for a plot and the lack of even insubstantial surface character development made it seem like just a bunch of nice drawings. This is by far THE worse anime that came out of Japan. I can't believe they actually put their names on this garbage. What a rip off selling this thing for $20. If you haven't seen this don't bother. If you have, I pity you.

Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window."<br /><br />Like "North By Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.<br /><br />While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain. <br /><br />Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.

Good (not great) little horror film with a high "creep" factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment ("The Honeymoon")). Solid acting and a few truly "scary" moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. "Surprise" ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS.

In the history of cinema, every great film-maker had to create a first film. Many times when viewed after they have become a success, a light bulb goes on in our heads. The connection is made and we see the solid foundation from where they started. So it is with HORSES ON MARS. It is the subtle humor woven around a seemingly straight-forward narrative that tells a great story, but allows you to enjoy the visuals at the same time. In the imagery, I found great attention to detail and a production polish that is rare in any student film.<br /><br />A young film-maker always has improvements to be made. But if Mr. Anderson continues on this path, I think we will someday look back on this film as the beginning a great career.<br /><br />You should definitely view this film. Nothing beats the grandeur of the big screen.

A root canal without anesthesia is more amusing. This movie is disturbing and pointless. There is absolutely nothing believable about any of these characters or the plot line. What in God's name were these people thinking when they agreed to star in this movie? The acting in this movie is so incredibly bad - even from actors who are usually pretty damn good. "The In-Laws" is a funny movie. "The Birdcage" is a hilarious movie. "The Big Lebowski" is a humorous movie. This movie is just dumb. I cannot even begin to fathom the kind of sick mind it takes to write the "novel" that this movie is based on. I honestly cannot think of even one nice thing to say about this movie. It just doesn't make any sense. People please - I beg of you - do not see this movie. You will regret it for the rest of your life. This movie is not the worst ever made, but it is definitely right up there on the top of the list.

The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.

A rather silly little film you just may love.<br /><br />Although rather corny and cliché at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy "knowing yours is the best team."<br /><br />Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper "Be a Pepper" commercials and before his major 1981 hit "American Werewolf in London". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.<br /><br />Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love.

I see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way.

I read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.<br /><br />The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.<br /><br />I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.<br /><br />This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade...

The Dentist is a really good thriller. And pretty disturbing. I think we can all agree that the chances of running into a psycho dentist are much bigger than running into monsters, vampires or zombies. That's exactly why this movie is so scary. During this film, you'll probably think about your own dentist a few times. Whether he's capable of doing such things...You better pray his wife doesn't cheat on him. That's what the story is all about. A respected dentist in LA snaps when he finds out his wife is cheating on him with the pool-boy. ( That must be the greatest profession in the world, by the way. Poolboys always take advantage of the housewives when the husband is at his work) From then on our dentist, Dr. Feinstone, can only thing about taking revenge. He can't concentrate on his patients anymore and a couple of them get hurt. Things aren't made easier for our dentist when he's chased by an annoying tax-controller, a curious cop and a suspicious staff member of his. At one point, Dr. Feinstone can't take it anymore. Now he's not only after his wife but after everyone who comes near him.. The dentist is written and directed by Brian Yuzna and co-written by Stuart Gordon. You can take that as a recommendation to itself. These 2 persons already gave us a few great horror movies ( and personal favorites of mine ) like Re-Animator, From Beyond and Society. With the Dentist, they succeed once more to bring an entertaining and very chilling thriller. This film came right on time actually. The decade hadn't brought us many great horror films so far. I'm not at all saying this IS a masterpiece, but it's a nice change. Corbin Bensen is great as the dentist obsessed by hygiene. I remember him mostly as a comedy or drama actor, but he can sure handle a psychotic character. The rest of the cast does good work too. The woman who plays Feinstone's wife is really attractive. Also, it was great to see Ken Foree acting again. The actor from my all time favorite movie Dawn of the Dead plays the cop in this film. Yuzna casted him in From Beyond too, 15 years ago and I thank him for that. I don't recommend this movie to everyone (if you have a weak stomach, I'll advise you to skip it) but if you do watch it, you'll enjoy it very much. You'll be disgusted...but that's an extra reason, I think. It's been a while since I was really freaked out by watching a film. It's a great topic to handle in the genre and Yuzna does it in a great way. Too bad this film was followed by a completely unnecessary sequel. My humble opinion on the Dentist ... 8/10

Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer cause of his crushed spirit.<br /><br />First, it's highly unlikely that his mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity itself-- which both the Legion and war offered.<br /><br />Second, Hans loses his successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career.<br /><br />Third, he commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence.<br /><br />A few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery scene).<br /><br />And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally, Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall. Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair.<br /><br />This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and present a marked contrast to Han's fall.

so, being a fairly deep fan of horror movies, it's been a while since i've seen one that really made me jump (or fidget nervously.)<br /><br />definitely going to get this on DVD when it comes out... a hell of a lot better than the ring. the thing that i don't get is that so many people that we talkd with after the movie thought that it was horrible, well, if that's what you think, then so be it... i know what i liked and it takes a fair amount to get me to actually feel scared, so i have to say that this one is worth watching.<br /><br />now, you might be disappointed in the story if you need everything in a neat and tidy line, because the plot goes back an forth a little bit to help build the story (i think that if it was shown in chronological order, it would have ruined the whole thing.)<br /><br />i'm actually glad that this movie had very little bloody messes in it... maybe the rest of you studio writers and whathaveyous will realize that you don't have to splash the red stuff all over the set to make people afraid.

Just recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it. <br /><br />Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake. <br /><br />But the whole thing makes you go "Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. "There's a hand in the sh**er!" or "You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.<br /><br />STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.<br /><br />Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them "A good job at stupidity", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.<br /><br />The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care. <br /><br />So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.<br /><br />3/10

Excellent farce! Which, of course, is all it is intended to be. Thankfully there is neither a social or political message, nor is there the slightest attempt in that direction. Could the plot actually take, or have taken place in any particular time or location? Unlikely, for, after all, this is simply, merely, a movie, and movies spring from imagination, not from reality. The only goal of this movie is to entertain, certainly not to educate, and entertain it does, with reality delightfully and lightheartedly tossed to the winds. I think most would agree that from documentaries we expect enlightenment and authenticity. But for entertainment I want what is nowadays described as a "no-brainer," which The Mating Game is in all respects. For a few chuckles and an outright laugh now and then, this is fine fare fantasy.

I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the "Brotherhood of the Protectors", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers "excommunicated" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as "brothers" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say "Father" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says "Brother" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as "Father".<br /><br />In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all "Brotherhood of the Protector" scenes re-shot as "Archdiocese" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in "Godzilla"). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?

When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.

This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.

The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.

I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?<br /><br />Well, let's make no mistake about it. "Munchie Strikes Back" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?<br /><br />Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was "borrowing" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.<br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. "Munchie Strikes Back"'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, "Munchie Hangs Ten". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10

This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this.

Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM "Who you callin?" (sic) "The police"(sic) "You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone"(sic) "Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops"(sic) "I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive"(sic) "Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone." (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, "Hey, what're you doin'?" No answer. "Hey, I got a family to worry about." (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition<br /><br />Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, "Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now." <br /><br />Embarrassment for all. Oops.

For once a sequel to "The Karate Kid" without Ralph Macchio! Hilary Swank did an excellent job playing the orphan Julie Pierce. Pat Morita, the one who plays Mr. Miyagi worked his way with Julie quite different from Daniel. Both Daniel and Julie favored karate. Unlike Daniel, Julie was the most surly person Miyagi ever challenged. And there was no tournament to compete in. And there's gonna be some humor in this movie as well. I liked the part where when Julie came home from school, Miyagi went to check on her, and saw her change clothes in the process. That was very funny! And the classic "Wax on, Wax off" scene was different as well. It was funny when Miyagi tells Julie, "Uh-oh, missed spot". The set in Boston was a far cry from California. The Militant group in that group, was like the "Cobra Kai" in Boston. And Michael Ironside's Col. Dugan was no John Kreese. His group practically deserted him when Julie kicked some serious butt. They all paid the price when they blew up that classic Oldsmoblie. What a cowardly act. At least they'll find redemption from Dugan's poison. This Karate Kid sets some morals, unlike the last three, which talked about "Honor" and "Respect". Hilary Swank is outstandingly hot in any movie and everything else she does. Movie 9, Hilary Swank 10!

I don't know how this movie has received so many positive comments. One can call it "artistic" and "beautifully filmed", but those things don't make up for the empty plot that was filled with sexual innuendos. I wish I had not wasted my time to watch this movie. Rather than being biographical, it was a poor excuse for promoting strange and lewd behavior. It was just another Hollywood attempt to convince us that that kind of life is normal and OK. From the very beginning I asked my self what was the point of this movie,and I continued watching, hoping that it would change and was quite disappointed that it continued in the same vein. I am so glad I did not spend the money to see this in a theater!

I couldn't have been more thrilled; Just eight years old back in 1983, I was going to see a Star Wars movie at the theater! The best day of my life was about to happen. To that time, my only Star Wars experience had been a few HBO showings of Star Wars. I hadn't even seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.<br /><br />And boy, did that day deliver for my less critical eyes. Jabba. Big Rebel spaceships. The Emporer. A green-bladed lightsaber!! Wow! Since that magical day, I must have watched this movie hundreds of times. I can't even form an accurate estimate at this point. With those multiple viewings, I have of course observed that this movie - the REAL Episode III - does have its flaws.<br /><br />Of course in the context of a Star Wars movie, those "flaws" are more like "quirks".<br /><br />Millions had had their magical day in 1977 and 1980. In May of 1983, I had mine. And this was my Star Wars movie.

A fabulous film,which I have now watched several times over since buying the video only four days ago.Yes I am a Colin Firth Fan and Colin was his usual talented, natural gorgeous self.<br /><br />The interaction between Colin (Matthew Field)and Fissy(Sammy, Nimi's 7 year old Son) was very special and so natural to watch. They were hilariously funny together and also touched my heart strings. The scenes which I loved the most was Sammy and Matt sitting on the wall chatting and Matt then falling backwards off the wall in an hilarious fashion (I won't reveal the content of their discussion so as not to spoil the plot). Also very hilarious was Sammy quizzing Matt about sex, Colin and Fissy were perfect in this scene and making what can be an awkward subject between adult and child just so natural. Colins words and face at the end of that scene were so delightful and said it all! just brilliant. Credit, of course, must also go to Fissy Roberts for his delightful portrayal of Sammy. He played such a lovable and cheeky child character. The two actors were just perfect together.<br /><br />The interaction between Colin (Matt) and Nia (Nimi)was perfectly balanced and I couldn't agree more that the chemistry between them was wonderful to watch, displaying love,tension and of course passion. It was exciting to see how their delicate blossoming romance gradually unfolded, also showing how their cultural and social divides affected their relationship and was good to see how Colin and Nia sensitively portrayed Matt and Nimi discovering, accepting and overcoming these differences. It kept me fixed to the TV and guessing right until the end of the film. <br /><br />Colins portrayal of Matt's vulnerable and juvenile side was also perfectly portrayed, so much so, that I found it was difficult to watch when Matt was so mean and childish towards Sammy because he (Matt) felt that Sammy was getting in the way of his romance/relationship with Sams Mother Nimi.One couldn't help feeling very disappointed, angry and frustrated with Matt for treating Sammy this way and this in turn threatening to spoil Matts special relationship with Sammy and Nimi. Colins special talent of 'getting inside a character's head' and displaying to the audience the different sides of a character, was very much in evidence here and pure magic to watch. I must also mention that Colin also has such a good rapport with young actors (see also 'My life so far'a wonderful and not to be missed film).<br /><br />I also loved the relationship between Matthew and his wife Jenny, both were excellent in displaying to the audience the dark side and tensions within their marriage and that not all seemingly 'Happy Marriages' are quite what they may seem from the outside. <br /><br />I mustn't forget to mention the reverend whom I thought was very funny, in a serious sort of way! Also Nimi's Mother and family were hilarious as well as bringing across the importance of Nimi's culture and her situation.<br /><br />The downside, I can't really find a downside,but to be objective about the film and to give credibility to my review, the only negative comment that I would make is that the script writers didn't explain in enough detail as to why Matt collapsed in the car, there was only a vague suggestion, from Nimi, of something being wrong with his heart. However, this didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film, far from it.I just needed to rewind the tape a little for a 2nd take.<br /><br />I felt that this film had it all, entertaining, uplifting and I loved the rich colours and sunny scenery.The film warmed up a cold winters day and made me smile :-)) All the essential elements were there,laughter,love,tension,sadness,anger,drama and a Warm feel good factor, with, yes plenty of those delicious Colin Firth moments including a very soaked Colin in a 'Wet Shirt scene',not to be missed by any fan, what more could a girl want;-)) <br /><br />I would strongly recommend this film, specially to any Colin Firth Fans ;-)

This is a horrific re-make of the French movie Ma Vie en Rose (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119590/). The only scenario that I can imagine in which anyone (Sinise?! Bates?! Butler?! What WERE they thinking!?!) agreed to be associated with it is MacLaine seeing the original, being rightly impressed, and enlisting a friend (with no writing credits -- or talent! -- to his name) to translate the themes for American audiences -- whom they both agreed are stupid, stupid, stupid. Then she enlisted other friends to sign up, and they did so as friends -- certainly not on the merits of this pathetically contrived, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink script.<br /><br />I'm not a knee-jerk fan of French film, but Ma Vie en Rose is a subtle, thoughtful, and thought provoking treatment of sensitive cultural issues. I would love to see it get wider exposure among English-speaking audiences -- and if that means an American re-make, so be it. But puh-leeze! a little respect for the issues AND the intelligence of the audience -- and better direction for the actors, who couldn't seem to decide if they were working for Tennessee Williams or Jerry Lewis!

This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.

This is the most ludicrous and laughable thriller I've ever seen. Oh....where to start....<br /><br />Plot (what little there is): Clayton Beresford Jr. (Hayden Christensen), a young billionaire, with a bad heart is desperately in need of a transplant. Clay has been secretly engaged to his mother's PA, Samantha, played by Jessica Alba. On the night that these two secretly get married, it just so happens that a heart donor with the same rare blood type is found. Go and figure the odds of that one! Once on the operating table, Clay finds out the anesthesia isn't working, and he can feel everything and hear everything.<br /><br />Fortunately Clay seems to be able to filter out the pain of a razor sharp scalpel cutting open his chest by simply concentrating on his memories of Samantha, which we are told he's doing through an annoying voice-over which never seems to stop.<br /><br />If you didn't burst out in laughter yet, you will surely start to when you see the surgical scenes. <br /><br />How could a young billionaire agree to have a heart transplant performed by one surgeon, one nurse, an attending physician and an drunk anesthesiologist? There were more people in the room when my wisdom tooth was getting pulled. Not to mention the medical behavior, which is too preposterous to be taken seriously...the operating room isn't even kept sterile...people are practically able to just walk in and out of the room without even having washed up... During the operation the viewer gets to hear Clay's thoughts, none of which are too fascinating. Ah...but here's what it's all about ...the doctors are trying to kill him in order to take his money. Believing him to be unconscious, the villains speak freely. Gosh! What will happen? <br /><br />Well... at least there's no interference from anyone else in the hospital, while an incompetent doctor who's got four malpractice lawsuits running against him is performing major heart surgery. Not even Clay's overprotective mother seems to be able to check on his status. The only one interested in keeping updated is Samantha...but oh no...could sweet Sam be in on it....You'll quickly find out through some Scooby Doo dialog...<br /><br />In the end, it wouldn't even matter whether or not Clay underwent anesthesia awareness, because the end would have turned out the same way in both cases.<br /><br />If you can ignore the feeling that the director/writer is trying to make fun of the patients who fell victim to anesthesia awareness, maybe there's some dumb fun to be had...<br /><br />Enjoy...

I really liked this movie! Even though it wasn't anything like any of the books it still the that classic Nancy Drew style. I had been seeing a lot of advertisements for this movie and since I was really into the Nancy Drew books I had really high expectations for this movie and they most definitely met those expectations. Pretty much all of the characters were exactly how I pictured them from reading the books. I am really happy that I saw this movie. All of the actors and actresses really acted like they acted like in the book series. Ever since I saw this movie I have wanted to read every single Nancy Drew book there is out there. All of the actors and actresses really got into their characters and it definitely showed when the aired this movie on the big screen. It definitely seemed like all of the actors and actresses were really in the positions that the characters were in I most definitely give this movie a 10 out of 10.

New York, 1953. One hot night, four famous iconic figures will come together. The professor (Albert Einstein) has come to NY to give a speech, which he has, the senator (Joesph MacCarthy) on his back. Later that night his gets a surprise visitor; a famous actress (Marilyn Monroe). Who actually wants to discuss the theories of Relativity. Soon her ball-playing husband (Joe DiMaggio) turns up at the hotel room, begging to work things out for their crumbling relationship. Flashbacks of childhood, important events, perceived consequences of their actions creep in to show how these individuals cope with despair and a hidden fear waiting to break out.<br /><br />Now that's one-of-a-kind! Adapted off a stage-play by Terry Johnson (who would also script the screenplay for the film), "Insignificance" is an odd, quirky, seductive and downright curious fictional pop-culture gimmick in the hands of director Nicolas Roeg. This inspired and cerebral experimental effort might be rooted in its stage-play origins, because it does feel theatrical and most of the action occurs in a hotel backdrop and one main suite. The cramp look only enhanced the moody and smoky atmosphere of New York to great effect. However these limitations can't contain the fruitful and daring ideas that Roeg manages to randomly storm up visually and through the meaningful material. The way he reflects on the characters' (who are suggestively famous figures, without the need of naming of them) philosophical journeys and interpretations of their notions is stimulating in a spiritual sense, with the memories gelling into the present and visions showing their fears of realisations, which depending on what you're seeing is either beautiful, or hauntingly implemented. There's plenty of food for thought and hints within the verbosely innovative (if sometimes awkward) script, with the main focus concerning the present situation, but the flashbacks gives us the personal make-up (sex, power, enlightenment and glory) of what makes them who they are and how much of a burden it can be in there already demanding lives. Sure the story might not lead to anything by the end, and it can feel disjointed, but the dreamy vibe and intelligent arrangement irons out those folds and makes sure it never turns giddy. Peter Hannan's sensually fluid photography and Stanley Myers' titillatingly oozing blues soundtrack fit in snugly with Roeg's stylistically subdue and established style of directing. He makes it look like he's working with something big and large-scale, but otherwise that's not the case and a small little universe is created. The vintage costumes and locations of the period all come off fittingly enough. What made the film for me had to be the impressive acting it boasted from the main four. Theresa Russell's perky, drop dead gorgeous appeal of the sexy pin-up actress is a growing portrayal that definitely held the film together along with an genuinely excellent and endearing performance by Michael Emil as the professor. Tony Curtis marvellously plays it up as witch-hunting senator and Gary Busey is suitably good in the stoically gravel manner as the ballplayer. Showing up in minor, but amusing support roles happen to be Will Sampson and Patrick Kilpatrick.<br /><br />A memorably striking, fresh and tour de force meditation piece of metaphysics linked together by four different extremes. Some might find it pretentiously estrange and too talky, but this one had me wrapped up in its own little unique world to worry too much about its shortcomings.

What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.<br /><br />I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé<br /><br />Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that

Along with South Pacific, Guys and Dolls is for grown-ups - - it is sassy, sexy, and full of men being men and women being strung along.<br /><br />There is an energy and drive that makes this stand out from the pack - the strength of Jean Simmond's performance, and the charm of a young Brando, and an already masterful Sinatra add much to the overall feel and look of the piece.<br /><br />Guys and Dolls wins as it is unashamedly what it is: an MGM musical.<br /><br />Still good to look at and listen too with great tunes and dance numbers - it will remain one of the classics of 20th Century cinema and be watched with pleasure for years to come.<br /><br />Warmly recommended.

I could write a big enough comment on any one of the characters in Gundam Wing, they could each lead the series with their internal conflicts. Instead we get 8 great leads that take us through 49 golden episodes of Anime bliss.<br /><br />It contains dialogue that you can roll around in your head for months... years, and then go back to and derive new meaning from, a masterpiece in script writing (even though it has the typical Anime trait of there being a disparity between subtitles and English dub). It has an abundance of concepts and philosophies that make you think about your own views.<br /><br />The relationships between the cold unfeeling males and loving female characters is a stand alone aspect of this series. The relationship between Heero and Relena, and Milliardo and Noin are joys to watch. The apparent rejection of the male is underpinned with an inner turmoil that makes the love (a word never mentioned in the series) of the women necessary for them in their harsh soldier environment. The women are chasing aspects of the men that we rarely, if at all see, which makes the leading men all the more enigmatic. It takes Heero all of the 49 episodes to show some caring, but he gets there, and when he does, its a big pay off. <br /><br />And then there's the giant robot fighting. Fun to watch awesome sequences as good as any Hollywood epic fight scene. Any less clued up person would see giant robot fighting as a silly cartoon function for kids, as has become clear when I'm trying to recommend this series to my friends, but they're wrong. Many of the giant robot fights in Gundam Wing contain a hefty dose of pathos, usually concerning young rebels fighting for what they believe in against an oppressive society making their beliefs obsolete.<br /><br />The constant shifts in tone and emphasis through each episode makes Gundam Wing impossible to be boring, it is a captivating, thought provoking study on the potential of the human mind and body.

Though it pains me to some degree that I'm bothering to christen the comments board for this new series - mainly because I'd hate to give the false impression that there's actually any semblance of public interest in it - I feel compelled to throw in my chips on this one.<br /><br />To put it simply, never before have I felt so persuaded to root for a TV show's swift and merciless cancellation based solely on the merit of its promo ads. And, in case you're wondering, I'm a dude.<br /><br />Listen, Comedy Network: though your existing original programming is already, shall we politely say, of a 'questionable' quality (I'm looking at you, "Girls Will Be Girls") you have truly outdone yourselves on this one. Whoever green-lit this thing could not be further out of touch with what's cool right now.<br /><br />Best of luck.

This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.

I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.<br /><br />The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end!

The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.<br /><br />I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.<br /><br />Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east.

Huge, waddling, grimacing tree trunk menaces fake "natives" on a "Pacific Atoll" (looking suspiciously like Southern CA...), reaking havok and revenge. Unlike the silly stumps in "Navy VS The Night Monsters", the Tabonga is actually a full-grown man-tree. Well, grown in 2 days: moost have od'ed on those Miracle Grow spikes...Anycow, it comes not from Hell, but from the grave of a fake native, Kimo(Greg Palmer, "The Zombies of Mora Tau"), murdered by the native elders for hanging out with those awful American scientists. The scientists include Dr. William Arnold (Tod Andrews, "Hang 'em High", "Beneath the Planet of the Apes") and Professor Clark(John McNamara,"War of the Colossal Beast"). Rounding out the cast is Linda Watkins("The Parent Trap") as the obnoxious Mrs. Kilgore, the obvious comic relief spurting out an obvious fake "cockney" accent. A stellar cast indeed!! Anycow, because his doughy, vacant wife, Korey, played amateurishly by Suzanne Ridgeway("Love's A-Poppin'"), helps set him up, Kimo declares his revenge on her and all of the elders. Then, the dopey American scientists uproot the tree, bring it back to life "in the name of science", & allows it to SLOWLY amble about the island, killing off everyone who has done him wrong. Of course, we all know that evil monsters carry off fair maidens, so the Tabonga grabs plucky female scientist Dr. Terry Mason(Tina Carver, "Hell on Frisco Bay") & waddles off with her. Vine-ally, a good shot with a Remmington hits a knife lodged in the Tabonga, and it falls over dead into the quicksand. This laughably foolish cowncept is one of the all-time cheesy howlers. The Tabonga is arguably the slowest monster in moovie history, right up there with the clanky, over-built robot from "Robot Monster vs the Aztec Mummy" and the perversly slow carpet monster from "Creeping Terror". Try not to laugh as you watch the Tabonga toss fake natives down hills & into quicksand, dodge spears, and lumber slowly about the "island". Shady writing, wooden performances, and sappy direction all point that this pulpy fertilizer has far mooore bark than bite. This tepid pile of wood chips was the last hurrah from long-time editor-turned-director Dan Milner, who quickly vanished into well-deserved obscurity following this film. You herd it through the grapevine from the MooCow first: "From Hell it Came" is a compost classic!! :

This is a wonderful look, you should pardon the pun, at 22 women talking about breasts-- theirs, their mothers', other women's, and how they affect so many aspects of their lives. Young girls, old women, and everyone in between (with all shapes, sizes, configurations, etc) talk about developing, reacting, celebrating, hiding, enhancing, or reducing their breasts.<br /><br />It's charming, delightful, sad, funny, and everything in between. Intercut with documentary footage and clips from those famous old "young women's films" that the girls got taken to the cafeteria to see, the interviews are a fascinating window for men who love women & their breasts into what the other half has to say when they don't know you're listening.

Recently shown on cable tv the movie opens with a disclaimer distancing itself from any co-operation of real life persons; that in itself is an eye catcher. Yet the script and acting from the main characters is superb and I found myself engrossed throughout.Due in no small way to the crisp, thoughtful and interesting dialogue.The film is about a meeting on one day between two real life musical "legends" who formerly composed together then seperated.The film captures the essence of their lives and philosophies, in a story which proffers an explanation for their initial "split". What is so impressive is that the actors give such seemingly realistic portrayals of the characters they play,faults and all, that this viewer at least was left believing I was witnessing a true event in almost every detail. The great skill of this play is that with astute writing and fine acting a movie basically about "two of us" talking can make an excellent picture. Worthy of at least an 8 out of 10.

My kids loved this movie. we watched it every chance we got.it was fun a fun movie. we watched it as a family and everyone of us enjoyed it. it was a movie you could watch without any uncomfortable spots that you would have to explain to the younger ones. my boys loved this movie and they would love to be able to see it again. even after all these years they remember it. that Amy Jo Johnson was a very cute girl. all my boys had crushes on her. they loved her as the pink power ranger which is why we watched this movie to begin with. (as you can tell i am rambling a bit to fill lines LOL). but seriously it is a fun movie and worth watching. Disney please give us a DVD or replay!

Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.

Ok, so it may not be the award-winning "movie of the year" type-film (apart from the brilliant soundtrack that I think won a few awards), but it is a really great film about 'The Kid' (Prince / O( take your pick) and the happenings around him living in Minneapolis, playing his music. The music is absolutely superb, in my opinion you HAVE to own this soundtrack, it is truly a classic and sums up the eighties sounds and feel in a wonderful fashion. And the movie itself plays out a nice plot, it's worth seeing over and over again, espeically if you like Prince / O (which I do) of course.

A bad Quentin Tarantino rip off, at least I hope that's what they were going for because at least then I could respect the director for admiring Tarantino. One scene a "singing" scene with Rose McGowan is far to well done and genius for this film and could have only been stumbled on by mistake by this director. So besides his Quinton inspiration and Rose McGowan and her one good scene this film sucked. Some of the crappiest dialogue I have ever heard, I'm willing to bet why McGowan doesn't speak much is because of how crappy her dialogue would have been. Tries to be funny, never is, tries to be dark and isn't, tries to be stylish and is just bland. Who dishes out the money to make movies like this, I'm hoping it was all the directors so no one else's money was wasted. If not for McGowan the whole cast is awful and when McGowan is your best hmmm, I gotta wonder.

This documentary is as unique as it's subject. And while D'Amato's staple was erotica, the film manages to show some decent clips of the films you may remember from old time, late night Cinemax... One problem... Joe did hardcore porno at times mixed with softcore erotica, even mixed in his gore films. The gore films are cult classics, going for like $20 a pop for a dubbed copy on the net (not peanuts for 20 year old films, folks.) I want to see why those are cult classics. Also, as sweet as Joe seems (he did seem more elegant than one might expect,) the dude liked to shock. Both "Caligula: The Untold Story" and "Emanuelle in America" show us hardcore rape, snuff, and beastiality (in both, you'd be suprised how far he goes in "Caligula II" with that one, if you can track down an uncut print.) Although these scenes may be disconforting in a documentary of a persons career, hey, he did it... Also, I would have liked to see more interviews of people Joe worked with... Maybe that's just me wanting to see what Laura Gemser looks like these days... I still think she's a goddess and one of the sexiest women ever to grace the genre.

I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.

for many and many years, gaijin have visited japan for learning martial arts, instead of acquiring any knowledge on it, gainjin have been told only nihonjin could achieve the excelent performance required to show some techniques in a "public" performance such as a movie...<br /><br />this one special movie, made by sho kosugi, not only shows all of those techniques and skills, but also teaches many and many lessons on how to achieve them, and one can verify that by seeing a LUCINDA DICKEY performing fantastic and unforgettable acting skills in NINJUTSU...<br /><br />I strongly recommend watching this movie more than thrice, because three times is not enough to seek out hints and tips given so easily by sho kosugi to those who really seek knowledge itself, the gnosis...

Mary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.<br /><br />Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie falls into the 80's trap of weird/stupid special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is largely boring and based around a bunch of worthless characters. This also isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It has the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, boring movie.<br /><br />The acting is decent enough to give it a 3 out of 10. You can waste your time doing something else.

This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.<br /><br />There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).<br /><br />The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.<br /><br />The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).<br /><br />Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.<br /><br />There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.

Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****

In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)

The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.<br /><br />Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.<br /><br />The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.<br /><br />The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?<br /><br />At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. <br /><br />Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. <br /><br />Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". <br /><br />Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" <br /><br />Parhat

I really liked this version of 'Vanishing Point' as opposed to the 1971 version. I found the 1971 version quite boring. If I can get up in the middle of a movie a few times(as I did with the 1971 version) than to me, it is not all that great. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I was only nine at the time the 1971 version was brought out. However, I have seen many remakes, where I have liked the original and older one better. I found that the plot of the 1997 version was more understandable and had basically kept true to the original without undermining the meaning of the 1971 version. In my opinion, I felt the 1997 version had more excitement and wasn't so "blase".(Boring)

Another good Stooge short!Christine McIntyre is so lovely and evil and the same time in this one!She is such a great actress!The Stooges are very good and especially Shemp and Larry!This to is a good one to watch around Autumn time!

Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic!

No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.

This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs "Sini Ne" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.

dont ever ever ever consider watching this sorry excuse for a film. the way it is shot, lit, acted etc. just doesn't make sense. it's all so bad it is difficult to watch. loads of clips are repeated beyond boredom. there seems to be no 'normal' person in the entire film and the existence of the 'outside world' is, well, it just doesn't exist. and why does that bald guy become invincible all of a sudden? this film is beyond stupidity. zero.

Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects." <br /><br />Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!<br /><br />The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image. <br /><br />This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain!

This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.

Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.

This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.<br /><br />Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.<br /><br />Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!

Okay, "pretty good" doesn't scream rent me but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Campfire Tales. While by no means a classic the directors involved do have an idea what suspense is. The scares don't just jump out at you but instead the directors build steadily to the climatic moments. The film is based upon popular urban legends and ghost stories. The writers have updated the tales rather well and twisted them just enough that the familiar endings still pack a punch. The best of the shorts are "The Honeymoon" and "People Can Lick Too", I enjoyed both as they have nice suspense throughout each story. "The Locket" was a good ghost story and the wrap around "The Campfire" is pretty good too except they go for one too many twists at the end. The only disappointing segment is "The Hook" which is fine because it's pretty short anyway. Overall I give this a 7 out of 10. It has suspense, which is lacking from most horror movies today, and good acting by the cast. It may not rate up there with Halloween and The Exorcist but it's a good little movie well worth the price of a rental.

This absurd movie was about a "Goodie-two-shoe," teen-girl that really wanted to be Valedictorian but finds her obstacle in a teacher name Mrs. Tingle. Katie Holmes, who plays this "goodie-two-shoe," is faced with "the biggest dilemma of her teenage life" when this classmate guy of hers comes along with the final exams sample that should help them nail Mrs. Tingle's test. Mrs. Tingle comes along, catches Holmes, the classmate guy and her best friend with the sample of her final exam. Convinced that the three of them planned on cheating on here exam, Mrs. Tingle enthuses on her opportunity to ruin Holmes once and for all with allegations that can take away any chance of Holmes passing her class. And the classmate guy, who apparently has his eye on Holmes, always wondered why she never gave him the time of day (he's an idiot)? Feeling desperate, Holmes and her friends visit Mrs. Tingle in the middle of the night to try to dissuade her in believing that Holmes was planning to cheat. It all backs fire somehow when the classmate guy points a bow and arrow at Mrs. Tingle, threatening her to make things right for Holmes. Mrs. Tingle fights back but ultimately ends up as Holmes and her friend's captive.<br /><br />During Mrs. Tingle captivity under Holmes, they do everything from tying her up and gagging her in her own bed to blackmailing her with false pictures that they took of the unconscious Coach in bed with Mrs. Tingle. I found myself cringing when the kids were making themselves at home in Mrs. Tingle's house, eating up her food and going though her private work. At one point, Holmes found Mrs. Tingle's grade book and purposely changes the grade in her favor, decreasing the grade of her challenge for valedictorian. The end played out like a childish attempt to bring back the comedy that was sparingly in the beginning of the film, resolving on pure irony, slapstick and absurdity.<br /><br />This has to be the most unlikable and wickedly evil character Holmes would ever play in her entire life. I wanted to help Mrs. Tingle get free to really dig a grave for Holmes. She was manipulative, selfish and conniving. She even slept with the classmate guy despite her best friend's overwhelming interest in him...and she didn't like him. From attempting to ruin her challengers grades by seizing Mrs. Tingle's grade book to taking her best friend's man, you would think that Holmes would get what she deserves in the end, right? Unfortunately, she obtains everything her heart desires, showing that being wicked, manipulative, selfish and whining can get you what you want.<br /><br />Mrs. Tingle was suppose to be the character you didn't like. They didn't bring me to that point once to believe that she was this woman that needed to be "taught this lesson." She was like every other strict teacher who even gave valid reasons for her resentment of the next generation. Personally, I felt that her opinions about young people were validated with Holmes and her friend's actions every time. I kept hoping she could get free to call the police and nail Holmes. They kept her tied up in bed, ate up her food like a bunch of pigs, drank up the woman's wine, messed with her personal belongings and we're suppose to believe that she didn't deserve to take a bat to each of their heads? And the classmate guy has to be one of the most disliked characters in the history of film. Forget idiot, we need a new word for him that isn't in the Webster's dictionary. He brought the major trouble into Holme's life then made things worse when he came into Mrs.Tingle's house, uninvited behind Holmes, and corners Mrs. Tingle with a bow and arrow. I was thrilled every time Mrs. Tingle had a chance to slap fire out of him, or choke the wannabe actress best friend.<br /><br />If you're a teen out there and want to see when a teen's manipulation and wrong doing can get him or her the world, see this unfunny, caricature filled, unintentional film noir.

I would not consider myself as one of Leonard Cohen's greatest fans. He does however feature as an important poet / musician in my literary / musical heritage. By far the most valuable element in this documentary is to hear Leonard's reflections on his own life and career. Warming and humble. <br /><br />Unfortunately the most of the musicians featured in the concert didn't converse the nuances of Leonard's musical / literary manner. Nick Cave, Jarvis Cocker & Beth Orton were the exceptions, even though Leonard highly values Rufus Wainrights interpretations of his songs.<br /><br />What particularly failed in this documentary was the ability of the filmmaker to allow the viewer to see who Leonard Cohen is and how these musicians connect to him. A lot is said in this respect, but the viewer is not drawn into the person Leonard Cohen. This failing is especially evident with the interviews with Bono and the Edge. They view Leonard as a special icon, but can't translate their exact value of Leonard Cohen. The collaboration with U2 is a farce. The entire live registration looks like a rushed job. And just as in the whole film, only Leonard Cohen remains his part and can tell about his own part.<br /><br />The entire montage and screenplay is much like a high school extramural project. The use of effects such as echo, slow-motion or flashed images are ill placed. Some of the camera-work is dismal. Part of the score hardly recalls any associations I may have expected. At times it seemed the filmmaker was adding psychotic elements to the film. Perhaps a reference to his once use of LSD.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor ... at some point Leonard tells how he influenced a musical genre. Initially he can't recall the genre's name, until eventually he says it was punk, the punksters really picked up on his music. The next scene in the film is a live cover of 'I can't forget' ...<br /><br />"And I can't forget, I can't forget I can't forget but I don't remember who"

I just managed to find a copy of "Mission Cleopatra," which is not as easy as you would think for someone living in the United States. So far, I have only watched about the first 10 minutes of the film, and I can safely say that I laughed more in those 10 minutes than I did watching the entirety of the *first* live action Asterix movie.<br /><br />I am watching the dubbed version, and while the dubbing job is a little disconcerting, I have found the movie to be very funny and true to the book. I see that people on here have said that the dubbed version is very inferior to the subtitled version, that may very well be true, and after I watch the subtitled version (also on my DVD) I may have to come on here and alter my review. As it stands, though, I find it to be a very entertaining movie, and it more than makes up for the mess which they made out of the first movie.

It occurred to me while the final scene of the movie froze to reveal the scant detail of Buddy Holly's death that there are still people alive today who were at that venue in Clearlake, Iowa who remember it vividly. That has to be a haunting memory, lent even more poignancy by the lyrics of "American Pie", as it pays tribute to the day the music died. The world lost some tremendous talent that day, lives cut short way before their prime, and one can only wonder what might have been if the trio of musicians who perished that day had survived to create an even greater musical legacy.<br /><br />I watched the film today some thirty years after it's original theatrical release. Thirty years, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around that. I had forgotten a lot of it, while remembering some of the little things, like the cricket in the wall who became immortalized with the band's name. But most of all, I remember the music. It's hard just to sit there and not begin tapping to the beat of "Oh Boy" or "That'll Be The Day", and one has to wonder just where the threat to our morals might have actually come from with those tunes. I'm with Buddy on that score at least, how could they be jungle rhythms if he came up with them? Funny how each successive decade brought it's own threat to the fabric of society - The Beatles, Motown, Disco and a whole host of other musical forms. We're still listening and dancing to the beat, so I guess they couldn't have been all that bad.<br /><br />There was another takeaway from the film I had forgotten about. This is where I learned to bang a phone on the table when the person on the other end wasn't seeing things my way. I've done that a number of times over the years, but by now had forgotten the source. Well, I should be good for another thirty years or so now.<br /><br />You certainly have to give Gary Busey credit for his portrayal of Buddy Holly. Seeing him today, one could never imagine him as the slimmed down rocker with the horn rimmed glasses, but it was a tour de force characterization and performance that earned Busey an Oscar nod. Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith are competent as Buddy's band members, though their characters take a back seat to much of the story. I enjoyed the subtle ways that other musical legends were segued into the picture, names like Sam Cooke and King Curtis, without ever dwelling on their presence. <br /><br />I'll always be a fan and follower of music from the Fifties and Sixties - 'oldies' they call them now. I guess that makes me a bit of an oldie too, but you can't replace the experience of growing up with the music history that now makes it to the big screen. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that I'll keep on enjoying the music until, well, the day I die.

Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.

Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.

The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.<br /><br />The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.<br /><br />The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.<br /><br />Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.<br /><br />Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(

Massacre is a film directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground) and produced by legendary Italian horror director Lucio Fulci. Now with this mix of great talent you would think this movie would have been a true gore fest. This could not be further from that. Massacre falls right on its face as being one of the most boring slasher films I have seen come out of Italian cinema. I was actually struggling to stay awake during the film and I have never had that problem with Italian horror films.<br /><br />Massacre starts out with a hooker being slaughtered on the side of the road with an ax. This scene was used in Fulci's Nightmare Concert. This isn't a bad scene and it raises your expectations of the movie as being an ax wielding slaughter. Unfortuanitly, the next hour of the movie is SO boring. The movie goes on to a set of a horror film being filmed and there is a lot of character development during all these scenes but the characters in the movie are so dull and badly acted your interest starts to leak away. The last 30 minutes of the movie aren't so bad but still could have been much better. The gore in the movie was pathetic and since Fulci used most of the gore scenes in Nightmare Concert there was nothing new here. The end of the movie did leave a nice twist but there was still to much unanswered and the continuity falls right through the floor.<br /><br />This wasn't a very good film but for a true Italian horror freak (like myself) this movie is a must have since it is very rare. 4/10 stars

This is a sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead, but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark-guy. Kind of like in Beauty and the Beast. It could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks, but there are some pretty gross plants instead. They make this one girl really itchy, so she lets herself get eaten by the shark-guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. The scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to, he even arranges for them to have private time for s-e-x, but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark-guy is an ugly, icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. She gave up on love! Just because he was a shark! I thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he'd turn back to normal and they'd live happily ever after, but it's not that kind of movie.

Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!

The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone "I'll call you" and "I just need some space" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? "Flatliners" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.

I liked this movie,,cute and funny.I found this film to be a good family film.the dirtiest part of this movie was when it made references to the New York Yankees. You have to be in Red Sox nation to understand that NY Yankees is a dirty word.Sorry to say that to the Yankee's fans.I recommend this picture for the entire family.Of course with your typical love/comedy movie,,there's a long moment in the movie,,with i'm in love and what do I do,,but the movie makes up for that with all the slapstick moments.The movie show's some moments of how the Red Sox nation( in Fenway Park)how the fans felt about 86 years of the Sox always screwed up at the end of the season and how the love of the Sox and the love with another human go hand to hand.

If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.

This is a feel good film, about one person's dreams and the drive or push to realize them. It is a beautiful and inspirational film. Why do some people have to try and find fault with every film that comes out, especially the good ones. Dennis Quaid gives a good solid performance in this true story of Jim Morris, a science teacher and high school baseball coach who is pushed by his team to take one more shot at a professional baseball career. With excellent supporting cast, including Brian Cox, as the crusty old ex navy officer who has let so much of his son's achievements go by without his support. It was good to see him as something other than a villain in a film. If I have one complaint with this film it is this: Don't ever let Royce Applegate sign the national anthem again. <br /><br />Seriously, this film belongs to that handful of great baseball films like "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural." It rates two thumbs up and a big "well done."

Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful. The first half hour you would pretty much want to switch the movie off..because this movie is a real stinker (mark my words. <br /><br />I liked Govinda in some o his comedy roles like Haseena Maan Jaayegi, Jodi No. 1, Akhiyon se Goli Maare and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and this does not compare to any of them. And Salman Khan should not do comedy roles at all!! He sucks. He does not know how to do comedy. The only good comedy role he did was in Andaz Apna Apna, which was brilliant next to Amir Khan. <br /><br />There were so many 'overly done stupidly unfunny' scenes in this movie that make you want to take out the DVD and burn it so no one else in your house watches it ever again.

You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**<br /><br />The biggest part of the movie that doesn't work IS the Wendigo, and when your title character fails, your movie usually isn't far behind it. The filmmakers' interpretation of the Wendigo's form is interesting, and can be properly menacing when filmed correctly - when the fleeing killer sees the Wendigo in a flash in his rear view mirror, for instance - and the tree-form was actually very good. However, as a monster character it never really comes to life. We don't get much of an explanation for its behavior, and what we DO see from it doesn't jibe with either the story told in the movie itself, or any Wendigo lore I've ever read.<br /><br />I think one of the main reasons that the monster fails is that it isn't given enough to do, in the movie. When you boil this film down to its bones, what you have is a suspense thriller with a little bit of a supernatural element, instead of a movie about a monster.<br /><br />The cinematography is good, though a little cheesy; the filmmakers use scenery, lighting, and time of day to convey atmosphere and mood rather well. The character of Otis comes across as truly dangerous and unpredictable, making him the real monster in the film. It might have been more effective to explain his behavior as him being possessed by the hungry spirit of the Wendigo, which would also be a more accurate representation of the real legend.<br /><br />I have heard unconfirmed reports (from a newsgroup) that the reason the Wendigo doesn't do much is that, when the monster suit was built, it wound up so heavy and and uncomfortable (in order to mimic the stance of it standing on cloven hooves, the performer had to walk on his toes) that it was nearly impossible to run, walk, or otherwise perform in it. Thus the many flashes of the creature standing still, and the obvious sped-up footage of it running. I stress that these reports are uncomfirmed.

This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.

This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.<br /><br />It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.<br /><br />Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing.

As everyone knows by now, 15 Park Avenue is the story of a schizophrenic girl and her half-sister.<br /><br />The manifestation of Schizophrenia is still viewed as being an illness which people often feel might disappear if ignored. There are also those, who, however far fetched it may seem when it's shown in the film, think that the illness manifests itself as a result of some sort of supernatural influence. I think Ms. Sen deserves a lot of praise for "15 Park Avenue". She has done a good turn, not only to the general public, but also to those who deal with schizophrenics ... relatives, social workers, psycho-analysts. The film actually helps in dispelling a lot of myths and misconceptions about the exact nature of this psychological disorder. I'm told that the film is largely based on her own personal experiences with a person very close to her, who suffers from this mental affliction. To that effect, I'm sure that none of what has been shown, is blown out of proportion ... on the contrary, it is a true representation of facts.<br /><br />The performances are good, on the whole, as can be expected. Konkona Sen Sharma, Shabana Azmi and of course Rahul Bose, are very good indeed. They emerge as very "real" characters ... credible enough for one to be able to identify with them at times. People may think me terribly queer, but I think there are moments when one can identify with Meethi as well! I suppose all of us have a streak of "insanity" inside us .... perhaps some more than others. These are the people who are singled out. After all, don't we all have our secret fantasies and dreams? Impossible ones, at times? Would we be dubbed as being "off our rockers" if people could glimpse into these areas of our minds? Would a person with low self-esteem, be considered a schizophrenic because he/she shuns company ... preferring instead to live in a world of his/her own because that's the only space where there is a sense of security?<br /><br />Konkona, as Meethi, is outstanding!! Her performance is so effortless ... she lives her part. She has shown the ability to lull the audience into forgetting the divide between reality and acting! A case in point is the part where she's distressed at the scene, shown on TV, of Saddam Hussein's arrest. Her reaction seems so uninhibited and intense ...as if she's really heart-broken at this tragedy! Her brand of Indian English too, is so spontaneous and natural. <br /><br />However, the same cannot be said for at least a couple of the other actors. Kanwaljeet and Waheeda Rehman, splendid actors both, seem ill at ease when delivering their dialogue in English. Their diction is less than perfect ... stilted and affected, the fact that they are making a supreme effort, becomes more than apparent. Their dialogue delivery is jarring and tends to break the smooth flow of the unfolding of the tale.<br /><br />The brutal rape of Meethi (Konkona), seems somewhat unnecessary. Any other incident would have sufficed just as well, I feel. The point here is that something triggers off the extreme manifestation of the illness. As the psychiatrist explains, one cannot, with any modicum of conviction or certainty, say that the incident of the rape was instrumental in bringing the hitherto latent propensity towards schizophrenia, to the fore. Then why are we subjected to the scene where Meethi lies bleeding and unconscious. Was Ms. Sen trying to make a social statement about the state of politics in our country, where the voice of the masses is silenced by a handful of people who resort to violence in order to stay in power?? If so, then the scene of the rape is warranted but not strictly in the context of the main body of the film.<br /><br />The ending seems somewhat abrupt. Is the audience expected to find a solution? Where does Meethi disappear to? Does Ms. Sen want us to feel that perhaps what the psychiatrist says about whose reality is more real and hence credible, holds true? In other words, is she trying to say that we are not without bias when judging who is on this side of the fine line between sanity and insanity? I'm not very sure.<br /><br />A thought-provoking film on the whole and well worth watching. However, IF you are the sort of person who likes things to be neat and tidy ... everything cut and dried, with a water-tight solution to each issue that comes up ... this film is clearly not meant for you!

Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections.

If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.<br /><br />Great Camp!!!

This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.

I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in "kangaroo" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks!

I took part in a little mini production of this when I was a bout 8 at school and my mum bought the video for me. I've loved it ever since!! When I was younger, it was the songs and spectacular dance sequences that I enjoyed but since I've watched it when I got older, I appreciate more the fantastic acting and character portrayal. Oliver Reed and Ron Moody were brilliant. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bill Sykes or Fagin. Shani Wallis' Nancy if the best character for me. She put up with so much for those boys, I think she's such a strong character and her final scene when... Well, you know... Always makes me cry! Best musical in my opinion of all time. It's lasted all this time, it will live on for many more years to come! 11/10!!

..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.<br /><br />Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.<br /><br />Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?! <br /><br />By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.

At first glance of this mini... I was a bit disappointed that Tommy Lee Jones and Anjelica Huston didn't return to the cast. Both John Voight and Barbara Hershey did commendable jobs replacing very important characters for the continuing saga of this legendary Epic Western. <br /><br />Cherokee Jack Jackson (Haysbert) played an excellent bad guy, and Louis Gossett Jr. was, as always, true to form with his excellent acting skills.<br /><br />The drama that seemed true to life in many scenes, including one of the best, where the valiant shoot-out ended with Ranger Walker being killed made me feel that I was actually in the film. Return to Lonesome Dove was to me, almost up to the quality of the first of the series. The next 2 follow ups with James Garner as Call just didn't make it for me. And that Lorena marries Pea Eye? How the heck did that get in their? That was a total mismatch of characters. The first 2 of the series made the Epic story, the next 2 in no way were of the same quality.<br /><br />Now, if the first 2 could be remastered in Dolby Digital and an Anamorphic presentation, the films could be where they should have been like the movies of today.

By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.

Watching this movie brings several words to mind: "sophomoric", "ridiculous", "improbable", "self-indulgent" and finally (and fatally), "boring". Badly directed, badly photographed and badly acted, the film is a confusing mess with plot lines (if one can call them that) veering in all directions. Someone may have used a five-year old's finger painting as a template. As punishment for this childish crime of a movie, this cast of "stars" should be spanked soundly and sent to their respective beds without dinner. . All in all, it seems like George needed an excuse to get together with his little buddies for a paid summer vacation and we're the suckers paying for it. Bad George! Bad!

Running only seventy-two minutes, this small, overlooked 2006 dramedy is really just a two-character sketch piece but one that works very well within its limitations. Taking place almost entirely in various, non-descript spots in southern Los Angeles, the story itself is inconsequential, but like Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation", the film is far more about two strangers who meet unexpectedly, find a common bond and go back to their lives enlightened for the momentous encounter. It also helps considerably that Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are playing the characters. Finally freed of the wise sages and authority figures beyond reproach that have become his big-screen specialty, Freeman seems comparatively liberated as a somewhat self-indulgent movie star. His character is driven to a low-rent grocery store in Carson, where he will be able to research a role he is considering in an indie film.<br /><br />Out of work for a few years, he is embarrassed when he sees DVDs of his films in the bargain bin, but his ego is such that he does not lack the temerity to watch and even mimic the enervated store staff. Of particular fascination to him is Scarlet, an embittered worker from Spain and relegated to the express line where she is the unsung model of efficiency. She has an interview for a secretarial job at a construction company, but her deep-seeded insecurity seems to defeat her chances already. Still looking like Penelope Cruz's Amazonian sister, the beautiful Vega (one of the few redeemable aspects of James L. Brooks' execrable "Spanglish") brings a stinging edge and realistic vulnerability to Scarlet. She and Freeman interplay very well throughout the story, which includes stops not only at the grocery store but also at Target, Arby's and a full-service carwash. Nothing earth-shattering happens except to show how two people realize the resonating transience of chance encounters.<br /><br />Silberling keeps the proceedings simple, but the production also reflects expert craftsmanship in Phedon Papamichael's vibrant cinematography (he lensed Alexander Payne's "Sideways") and the infectious score by Brazilian composer Antonio Pinto ("City of God"). There are fast cameos by Bobby Cannavale (as Scarlet's soon-to-be-ex-husband) and as themselves, Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, as well as a funny bits with Jonah Hill ("Knocked Up") as the clueless driver and Jim Parsons (the "knight" in "Garden State") as a worshipful receptionist. The 2007 DVD is overstuffed with extras, including a making-of documentary, "15 Days or Less", aimed at film students and running a marathon 103 minutes; six extended scenes; a light-hearted but insightful three-way conversation between Silberling, Freeman and Vega in the middle of Target; and a couple of snippets that specifically advertise the DVD.

When you read the comment on this film, that it's smart and funny political comedy based on true events - the only true word here is that it's a comedy. If you're told it's insider movie about Russian politics - it's not. There's probably only 2% in the movie from what really happened in Russia during that election-campaign. In reality of the 1996 it was thousand times more interesting to follow the situation and that was a real funky election-campaign. Well, there were PR-advisers from the US working in the Yeltsin's staff, but their role was just minimal. The whole campaign was totally different from what is shown in the movie, it would be much funnier showing all the president's people riding across the country with paper boxes full of cash, and the celebrities giving the shows to support Yeltsin all over the place - at least that would be true. I give it three only because of the respect to Jeff Goldblum, Antony LaPagglia, and Liev Schreiber. And about the machine guns on the streets of Moscow. I was living in the place that had the highest amount of hard crime in Russia in the middle of 90-s and never seen a man with the gun on the street.

This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.<br /><br />As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.<br /><br />Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.<br /><br />So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.<br /><br />Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.<br /><br />What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".<br /><br />Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?"

Having dabbled in the modeling industry (as a model), I watch this show with a slightly different view than most might. While I admit ANTM can be a fun, and entertaining show, as the seasons go on it seems to continue to drift from any reality.<br /><br />The show seems to be almost pure publicity for its contestants, seeing that none of the show's winners (or fellow contestants) have made much of a name for themselves out from under of the show's umbrella. Maybe that's because the truth is any girl with real potential to be a high-fashion model shouldn't have too much difficulty submitting to agencies (you can do so via email or snail mail if distance prevents you from attending an agency open call), signing to an agency, and starting a modeling career. Yes, the process does not guarantee success, but apparently neither does ANTM. And participating in a reality show seems to offer less of a boost in the modeling business, than signing to a top or decent agency (which only one contestant each cycle has a guarantee of anyway).<br /><br />Nonetheless, the show can't hurt, certainly can be amusing, and has a sort of magic that particularly works for teenage girls, I have found. Though, I must add, ANTM may become a tad tiring and dull, after watching several cycles, as it has become for me. And besides some unrealistic situations (each more outrageous than the last) the only other annoyance, is the overuse of "Tyra, Tyra, Tyra!" Tyra seems to genuinely want to guide these girls to success, but is it necessary for each of models' temporary digs to be covered in Tyra pictures; for virtually every panel and challenge to include a story or scenario that "Tyra" experienced and overcame? I think not.<br /><br />In my opinion, take out a little Tyra, put back in a little more reality, and ANTM could be a 10 star show, instead of a 7.

This show is possibly the biggest, ugliest, most generic steam pile I've seen in children's programming that's actually become successful. The lead character, Johnny, while I understand he's supposed to represent an ordinary kid, isn't likable or even tolerable. The jokes are lame, overdone (i.e. the "Whoa! Didn't see that coming" gag. Come on, that wasn't even funny the first time. It's not even cute) and lack any form of primitive wit or inspiration. And lastly... it's just plain ugly to look at. While kids aren't especially critical of artistic talent, they still prefer eye candy. I can't stand watching the show, because in a way, the art style is just...gross. Hideous, in fact. Just plain crummy. <br /><br />I just can't stand that this is getting so much airtime. While I understand that nostalgia can be a little irrational and I shouldn't be getting my hopes up on it coming back... I really miss the old cartoons. Bring back Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls... anything but this crap. I guess it's just wishful thinking though.<br /><br />Simply put, I advise you don't waste your time on this show. I believe that truly good cartoons are able to be enjoyed by the big kids, too. And this doesn't cut it.

The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'<br /><br />Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)

I have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.<br /><br />She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.<br /><br />The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) played a super part here.<br /><br />Mary Harron (American Psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever.

There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.<br /><br />At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.<br /><br />Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?<br /><br />There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.<br /><br />My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.<br /><br />Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!