Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!

I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.<br /><br />The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.<br /><br />Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.<br /><br />Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.<br /><br />But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.

This movie is a gem...an undiscovered Gerry Anderson classic.<br /><br />The origins of both "UFO" and "Space 1999" are obvious from this movie, including the cast list which includes the late Ed Bishop and George Sewell who both went onto "UFO".<br /><br />It is unfortunate that Anderson, despite his many TV successes, did not get a chance to develop his talent on the big screen. Just think what he could have done with the movie version of "Thunderbirds" (which he quite rightly disowned himself from!).<br /><br />I'm sure if you give "JTTFSOTS"/"Doppleganger" a fair chance you'll appreciate it's good qualities.

Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema.

When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.<br /><br />

I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.

Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's "surreal moments". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has "pulled" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo Díaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer/Director Michael Parness.

Not having heard of this film, it came as a surprise when it was shown on cable recently. Gary Ellis, the gifted director of "Tough Luck", does wonders with the screen play written by Bill Boatman and Todd King. The film involves the viewer from the start.<br /><br />Archie, the young hustler at the center of this story, has been involved in all kinds of petty crime. In fact, we witness a confrontation right at the beginning which makes him get out of New Orleans, as fast as he can. He ends up in the carnival that is run by the mysterious Ike. Archie falls for Davina, the woman he should have been wise to stay away from. The result proves a fatal judgment for Archie who then becomes the object of double crossing all around.<br /><br />The director should be commended by the casting of Norman Reedus, who obviously is loved by the camera. In spite of his nature, one feels for him because we know his heart is in the right place. The beautiful Dagmara Dominczyk is perfect as the exotic dancer Divana who, in spite of being Ike's lover, entices Archie into falling heads over heels with her. Armand Assante is barely understandable with the thick accent he speaks during the first half of the film.<br /><br />"Tough Luck" shows a new director, Gary Ellis, showing he will go to do bigger and better things because he knows what he is doing.

This film got roasted by the boys at MST3K, but it's actually a neat and nasty piece of low-budget film noir. The plot is tight, the characters are believable (within the good-boy-gets-obsessed-with-bad-girl genre), the pacing is solid, the climax is well-handled, and the cast is bolstered by several fine character actors. True, most of the time you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but he's actually quite effectively creepy when he plays the mastermind. The scenes between him and his dad are quite powerful, in a minimalist kind of way. Sure it's depressing, but that's the point. Good movie.

To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting. <br /><br />In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.

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

Alan Alda plays real-life "Sports Illustrated" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****

Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called "The Mole" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen

What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10

This was the second of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's, starring Mel Gibson, from 1990. Zeffirelli's version, like Laurence Olivier's from 1948, was based upon an abridged version of the play, with much of Shakespeare's original text being cut. (I have never seen Tony Richardson's 1969 version, but as that ran to less than two hours, shorter even than Zeffirelli's, I presume that was also abridged). Kenneth Branagh was attempting something much more ambitious- a film based on the complete text of the play, with a running time of around four hours.<br /><br />With his "Henry V", Branagh claimed Olivier's crown as the cinema's leading Shakespearean, confirming his claim with his brilliant "Much Ado about Nothing", a rare example of a great film based on a Shakespeare comedy. "Hamlet" was his third Shakespeare film as director (he also acted as Iago in Oliver Parker's 1995 "Othello") and, as one might expect, it is very different to "Much Ado….". The earlier film, shot in a villa in the hills of Tuscany and the beautiful surrounding countryside, is a joyous, summertime film about everything that makes life worth living.<br /><br />"Hamlet", by contrast is set in the depths of winter. (The flowers in the description of Ophelia's death suggest that Shakespeare himself thought of the action happening in summer). The look of the film is particularly striking, both sumptuous and chilly. It was filmed at Blenheim Palace, possibly England's most grandiose stately home, but also a rather forbidding one. The snowy exterior scenes are cold and wintry; the interior ones formal and elaborate. The action is updated to the mid nineteenth century; the female characters wear the elaborate fashions of that era, while the principal male ones mostly wear splendid military uniforms. (There is a contrast here with Zeffirelli's film, where both the interiors and the costumes were deliberately subdued in tone). The play is dominated by images of corruption and decay; Branagh's intention may have been to contrast a splendid surface with the underlying "something rotten in the state of Denmark".<br /><br />The film is notable for the large number of big-name actors, some of them in very minor roles. (Blink, and you might miss John Gieldgud or Judi Dench). Apparently, an all-star cast was required by the production company, who were nervous about a four-hour film. Some of the imported Hollywood stars, such as Robin Williams' Osric, did not really come off, but others, like Charlton Heston's Player King or Billy Crystal's First Gravedigger, played their parts very well. Yorick, normally only seen as a skull, is here seen in flashback, played by the British comedian Ken Dodd. Brian Blessed, who often plays jovial characters, is cast against type as the Ghost, and makes the scenes in which he appears genuinely frightening.<br /><br />Of the major characters, perhaps the weakest was Kate Winslet's Ophelia. Branagh's leading lady in his first two Shakespeare films was his then wife Emma Thompson, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1995. I did, however, find myself wishing that Thompson had been cast in the role; although Winslet came into her own in the Ophelia's mad scenes, she seemed weak in the earlier ones where her character is still sane. (I preferred Helena Bonham Carter in Zeffirelli's version). Richard Briers plays Polonius with a greater dignity than he is often given, a wise and experienced counsellor rather than a prating old fool. Julie Christie also brings dignity to the role of Gertrude; there is no attempt here, as there was with Gibson and Glenn Close in the Zeffirelli version, to suggest an incestuous attachment between her and Hamlet. (An interpretation which owes more to Freud than it does to Shakespeare). The age difference between Christie and Branagh is great enough for them to be credible as mother and son, which was certainly not the case with Close and Gibson. (Olivier's Gertrude, Eileen Herlie, was, bizarrely, thirteen years younger than him).<br /><br />Branagh stated that his intention in restoring those scenes which are often cut in cinematic versions was to "reinforce the idea that the play is about a national as well as domestic tragedy." Much stress is placed upon the war with Norway and the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras- a subplot ignored altogether by Zeffirelli. This emphasis on national tragedy is perhaps best shown in the character of Claudius, sometimes played as a one-dimensional villain. There is something about Derek Jacobi's performance which suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, but that he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. He could have been a good and loyal servant to his brother, but chose to rule as a bad king. Although he is tormented by guilt, he can see no way to make amends for the evil he has done.<br /><br />Branagh, a wonderfully fluent speaker of Shakespeare's verse, is superb in the main role. Like Gibson, he has little time for the old concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His is an active, physical, energetic Hamlet, something best shown in his fatal duel with Laertes. His guiding principle is not world-weary despair, but an active disgust with evil and corruption.<br /><br />It was a gamble for Branagh to make a four-hour epic, and the film did not do well at the box office. It was, however, praised by many critics, James Berardinelli being particularly enthusiastic. My own opinion is that, whatever the financial returns may have been, Branagh's gamble paid off in artistic terms. By concentrating on the full text, he was able to bring out the full meaning and full emotional power of Shakespeare's most complex play. When I reviewed his "Much Ado…", I said it was the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare comedy. His "Hamlet" may just be the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare tragedy. 10/10

This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R

I had never heard of this film when a good friend recommended it. I trust this friend's taste, so I purchased the DVD. My wife and I sat down to watch it with no knowledge of what it was about. I thought it was the funniest film I have seen in a long time, mainly because I saw the truth in the satire. I strongly recommend this film to all my friends.<br /><br />This is not a film for everyone. Some people will see the crass humor and aura of stupidity, and find Idiocracy to be one of the stupidest movies they have seen. What these people don't seem to understand is that the crass humor is there, not to amuse the audience, but to show what appeals to the morons in the future.<br /><br />Luke Wilson is well cast as an "average Joe." He is mainly there to be a foible for the biting commentary about society that is spread throughout this film. Many of the funnier bits are in the background, so it is easily worth seeing several times. What makes the movie even funnier, and more scary, is that I see elements of it in every day life, in people I meet or on the media. Then, I go back and re-watch Idiocracy, and realize how good it is.<br /><br />The few people who have seen and enjoyed this film are able to be part of an elite club. I'll see an advertisement for some product with some breakthrough new ingredient, and turn to my wife and say, "It's got electrolytes!" She knows exactly what I am saying.

This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.<br /><br />Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.<br /><br />The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."<br /><br />The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.

My first exposure to Japanese animation director Hayao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli production company was when an English-dubbed version of Spirited Away was released about 7 years ago. What a wonderfully creative and unique film experience that was! So on that note, I managed to get my movie theatre-employed friend to see this new film of Miyazaki with me especially since he loves all things Disney (this movie's U.S. distributor). Once again, all I can say is "Wow!" What awesome visuals concerning the way water is depicted as the ocean...and what about the title character's transformation from a goldfish to...and seeing how some characters' demeanor changes...and, well, watch this movie if you want to know what I'm talking about. Oh, and the voices being used for this American-dubbed version: Tina Fey, Betty White, Liam Neeson, Cloris Leachman, and Lily Tomlin. Good choices all. Does everything make sense? No, but that's part of the childlike charm that permeates throughout. There's plenty of funny scenes concerning Ponyo and the boy and many other people they encounter. Oh, I think I've written too much so I'll just highly recommend Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo.

College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)<br /><br />I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!<br /><br />I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.<br /><br />To all intents and purposes this is as 0/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)

This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.<br /><br />The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.<br /><br />This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.

First, I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan. I grew up knowing who he was, and I knew all about that fateful plane ride that extinguished three incredibly bright flames just like that. But I had never truly listened to his music. I had heard much of it, yes, but not until I sat down with the intention of getting something out of it did I truly come to see the real Buddy Holly. And let me tell you that my world is a different one now because of him.<br /><br />Because of this adoration for such an incredible man, I bought The Buddy Holly Story without ever seeing it previously. I'm torn on my views of this film. Perhaps it's because Buddy feels so alive to me that I just couldn't bear seeing Gary Busey in this role. I'll admit that he did a nice job acting, but his singing sounded so forced. It seemed to me as if he knew he didn't sound a bit like Buddy himself and therefore was using far too much energy to make an attempt at a similar sound. In some parts of the film, he succeeded. But others.. ouch.<br /><br />The movie spanned a period of several years, but I feel that portraying this time span could have been handled much better. I had a difficult time distinguishing at what point in Buddy's life certain events were happening. I also had a serious problem with some of the historical inaccuracies. I think the worst one was the portrayal of the Crickets. I understand how their real names couldn't be used, and how for simplification there were only two of them in the movie.. and maybe this was a good thing. Because the film's background vocals were cringe-worthy, and I disliked the way they were portrayed as a hindrance to Buddy's career. Something else that really made no difference to the film but irked me was Gary Busey's teeth. They wore me out! Buddy Holly had much better teeth. I don't know why I noticed it.. but I did.<br /><br />I'll end this review on what I felt was the best part of the movie: Buddy's last performance. His final phone call to Maria, the Big Bopper's performance, bringing him and Richie Valens to the stage, followed by the still frame ending. It startled even me, and I feel that it effectively shows the audience how at one moment Buddy Holly was so alive and energetic, and that his flame was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. It was a beautiful way to portray this horrible tragedy I think.<br /><br />Good movie, despite the obvious problems.. 7/10.<br /><br />Some obvious flaws, could use some work... but not bad.

Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.

This is the first movie I ever owned on video, and 14 years later, I still have the same copy. Elizabeth Taylor was as radiant at twelve as ever later in life, Mickey Rooney gave real dimension to Mi Taylor, and Donald Crisp was solid as ever as Mr. Brown. The amazing Anne Revere, as Mrs. Brown, seemed to be the wisest woman in the world. After nearly 60 years, the warmth, humor, and excitement of this film still affect the viewer; we still laugh at the jokes, root for The Pie, and love Velvet for the spirit and capacity for love that she displays. I love it as an adult just as I loved it as a child. A must for every family video collection.

I watched the pilot and noticed more than a few similarities between 3 lbs and House, M.D.. Tucci's character is brilliant but socially inept out of choice, similar to Laurie's character House, but without the acerbic wit that Laurie brings to House. Meanwhile, Tucci's 'straight guy', the emphatic doctor Seger, is not developed into a more interesting character, like the fallible 'straight guys' Cuddy and Wilson. Indira Varma's character Adrienne Holland is too similar to Jennifer Morrison's doctor Cameron to be a co-incidence.<br /><br />Someone at CBS obviously noticed the success of House, M.D. and told his staff to get him (her) a similar show, hoping that mimicry would prove successful. However, copying a show like House demands the same high level balance of wit and suspense and Tucci and company are just not up to the challenge.<br /><br />I didn't know the show was canceled until I read the comments on IMDb, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me.

If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod – buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.

I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD!

I've recently watched this movie, in a lazy Sunday afternoon, with some friend of mine and we have a lot of fun! This movie is a masterpiece of trash. Try to watch it with this purpose! It hadn't been expected, of course, but the performance provided by the actors (and Alberto Tomba is absolutely the best), the weak script and the low-cost budget had created an amazing mix of foolish things. Tomba was just retired from alpine ski racing, where he was a dominant technical skier in the late 1980s and 1990s. Tomba won three Olympic gold medals, two World Championships, and nine World Cup season titles. Seriously about the director: nobody knows why Damiano Damiani he has signed this movie. All the other Damiani's directions are considerable.

My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version).

This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered. <br /><br />The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimée and her servant, Protée. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protée or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protée lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.<br /><br />Also interesting is the relationship between Protée and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.<br /><br />There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protée! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.<br /><br />While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.<br /><br />Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel.

First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. <br /><br />I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. <br /><br />Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.<br /><br />So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". <br /><br />The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.<br /><br />Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.<br /><br />Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...<br /><br />...seriously.

Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).<br /><br />This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.

Well, my Dad drove Lee Evans back and forth the hotels so i got to see some being made. Its a brilliant film! Bob Pugh walked past a shed with a lawnmower and he accidentally let go and it went into a fence and he fell over.<br /><br />Lee Evans was also funny as he seen me and said are you cold I said Yes and he said Well whack your hands in your pockets! I think it was really funny and it will be a well-known comedy. As like every other Lee Evans film! They were really great people. they seemed to be quite polite and funny. I would like to meet them again one day. Brenda Blethyn walked out of her caravan with blood down her and twigs in her messy hair and i got really scared as i didn't notice her until she was right behind me

I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.

Scott is right. The best 2 person sword duel ever put on film is in the middle of this movie. The sword fights with multiple fighters are not the best although quite good. However, the fight in the middle is the best even compared to Japanese samurai movies. Chinese swordplay scenes in my opinion have never surpassed the Japanese in terms of entertainment value. Especially in scenes where one guy must battle a group of enemies, Japanese movies excel, example being the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Even though duels in Japanese cinema last only seconds or a minute at the most, the sheer intensity of those moments made them better. But, this is one example where Chinese swordplay surpasses the Japanese. The scene in the middle of this film was a five minute long fight with the most amazing choreography ever. The other fights in this movie are good too but even if they sucked this movie would get a 7 for that one scene. If you haven't seen it, you have to. John Woo is the man.

John Travolta, the biggest honkeytonk in the world, and a mechanical bull...what more can you ask for! Yeah, you're probably not going to get many surprises or deep meaning in this one. Yet, I have always found it fairly enjoyable to watch this redneck romance. Bud (Travolta) and Sissy (Debra Winger) meet at Gilley's and fall in love. They have all the difficulties you might expect a hardcore redneck couple to have. The honkeytonk scenes are fun with dancing, mechanical bull riding, and -of course- the required brawls. It has a good, 1980 country soundtrack, featuring "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places", "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", and "Hello Texas" by my favorite Jimmy Buffett. Break out your cowboy boots and have a boot-scootin' boogie! <br /><br />*** (Out of 4)

Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.<br /><br />Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.<br /><br />First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...<br /><br />They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...<br /><br />Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.<br /><br />Terrible, skip this one please.

I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes, except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this movie.

It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.<br /><br />It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.<br /><br />So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.<br /><br />I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.

So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes.

First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.

I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".<br /><br />The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.<br /><br />Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.<br /><br />Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.<br /><br />It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.<br /><br />But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.<br /><br />As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.

This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!

I'll put this as plainly as possible for those of you unaware of Bill Hicks' legacy. He was quite simply the greatest stand-up comedian in the world, almost certainly in my opinion the greatest that ever lived (his stand-up idol being the great Richard Pryor, whose battles with addiction he paralleled). His death in 1994 went barely noticed in the popular media, coming just weeks after Kurt Cobain had committed suicide. His tragic death at such a young age eclipses any sense of the injustice that he was criminally ignored during his life, of course. But the harsh truth is clear as day: nobody has stepped up to claim his mantle. There is not a stand-up comedian alive with nearly the skill and invention.<br /><br />The observation is made in the affectionate tribute `It's just a ride' that stand-up comedians often view the job as a stepping stone to richer pursuits - lame movies and morally-driven sitcoms, made to occupy - but never enrich - the lives of an unimaginative audience. It's everything that Bill Hicks spoke against. His sermon was always a rallying cry for people think for themselves, to scrutinise authority, to come together as one race.<br /><br />His appeal continues to grow with every passing year since his death. His star will continue to shine long after so many lesser lights have blew out. Once you've been exposed to his brilliant, intelligent, but ultimately compassionate output, you will be enriched and rewarded.<br /><br />The man himself was fond to quote Dylan: `To live outside the law you must be honest', he said. Bill Hicks was honest, beyond that he was the funniest of them all.

Woody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.<br /><br />There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz "experts" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it. <br /><br />Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 3/10.

A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.

I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...

This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.<br /><br />I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end.

Have you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, "Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done.

In Panic In The Streets Richard Widmark plays U.S. Navy doctor who has his week rudely interrupted with a corpse that contains plague. As cop Paul Douglas properly points out the guy died from two bullets in the chest. That's not the issue here, the two of them become unwilling partners in an effort to find the killers and anyone else exposed to the disease.<br /><br />As was pointed out by any number of people, for some reason director Elia Kazan did not bother to cast the small parts with anyone that sounds like they're from Louisiana. Having been to New Orleans where the story takes place I can personally attest to that. Richard Widmark and his wife Barbara Bel Geddes can be excused because as a Navy doctor he could be assigned there, but for those that are natives it doesn't work.<br /><br />But with plague out there and the news being kept a secret, the New Orleans PD starts a dragnet of the city's underworld. The dead guy came off a ship from Europe and he had underworld connections. A New Orleans wise guy played by Jack Palance jumps to a whole bunch of erroneous conclusions and starts harassing a cousin of the dead guy who is starting to show plague symptoms. Palance got rave reviews in the first film where he received notice.<br /><br />Personally my favorite in this film is Zero Mostel. This happened right before Mostel was blacklisted and around that time he made a specialty of playing would be tough guys who are really toadies. He plays the same kind of role in the Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. Sadly I can kind of identify with Mostel in that last chase scene where he and Palance are being chased down by Widmark, Douglas, and half the New Orleans Police. Seeing the weight challenged Zero trying to keep up with Palance was something else because I'm kind of in Zero's league now in the heft department.<br /><br />Kazan kept the action going at a good clip, there's very little down time in this film. If there was any less it would be an Indiana Jones film. Panic In The Streets won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year.<br /><br />Kazan also made good use of the New Orleans waterfront and the French Quarter. Some of the same kinds of shots are later used in On the Waterfront. In fact Panic In The Streets is about people not squealing when they really should in their own best interest. Very similar again to On the Waterfront.<br /><br />Panic In The Streets does everyone proud who was associated with it. Now why couldn't Elia Kazan get some decent New Orleans sounding people in the small roles.

I had no idea what I was going to see when I decided to view this film and to my surprise its just an extremely well made horror film that is easily one of the best of the 1970's. Film is of course low budget and this is an excellent example of how the story and style of a film creates chills, not special effects! Strother Martin is one of the great character actors of all time and he has a rare starring role here and the film also stars Martins good friend L.Q. Jones and "Green Acres" Alvy Moore. Jones and Moore helped produce this film as well. TV veteran Charles Bateman is the star and "Enter the Dragon" beauty Ahna Capri is his girlfriend. Capri is in a bikini at the beginning of the film and she's just gorgeous to look at! Film does a terrific job of staying with the story and not adding a phony feel good ending and I really liked the way the film ends. Great atmosphere, interesting story and well directed by Bernard McEveety. Martins performance is top notch also as he doesn't hold back at all and really throws himself into the role of Doc. Good and underrated film!

Directed by Govind Nihalani, this is definite cop film of Indian cinema. May be the first one which portrayed the stark reality of corruption in the police force & politics with no holds barred & how it effects on a young cop. A man forced to join a career of a cop by his cop father. Agreed that we grew up watching lot of good cop/bad cop Hindi films but this is different. Today's generation, which grown up watching dark & realistic films like- 'Satya', 'Company' may be consider it inferior product in comparison but look at the time of its making. The film was made absolutely off beat tone in the time when people didn't pay much attention to such kind of cinema & yet it becomes a most sought after cop film in class & mass audience when it released. For Om Puri its first breakthrough in mainstream Hindi cinema & he delivered a class performance as Inspector Velankar. Its more than cop character, he internalized a lot which is something original in acting. Watch his scenes with his father whom he hates & Smita whom he loves. Smita Patil maintained the dignity of her character to the expected level. My God what a natural expressions she carried!!! Shafi Inamdar was truly a discovery for me & he's a brilliant character actor if given a chance & here in some of the scenes he outsmarted even Om. The movie is also a debut of a promising villain on Indian screen- Sadashiv Amrapurkar as 'Rama Shetty'. It's another story that he didn't get such a meaty role & almost forgotten today as one of the loud villain of Dharmendra's B grade action films. Watch the scene where Om 1st time becomes a rebel for his father (played by Amrish Puri) & next both are sharing wine together. How inner truth started revealing for both the character with confronting feelings of love & hate for each other. Two faces of Indian Police Force- Masculinity & Impotency and in between lies- half truth (ardh satya)…Kudos to Nihalani's touch. The film won 2 National Awards as Best Hindi Feature Film & Best Actor- Om Puri & 3 Filmfare Awards in Best Film, Best Director & Best Supporting Actor Categories. <br /><br />Recommended to all who are interested in nostalgia of serious Hindi films.<br /><br />Ratings- 8/10

Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.<br /><br />What's a man to do?<br /><br />I rather liked "Dan In Real Life", but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, "Get Smart" will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.<br /><br />"Dan In Real Life" starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but "Dan In Real Life" is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.<br /><br />I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again.

Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven.<br /><br />However, there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying.<br /><br />The acting in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and more.<br /><br />This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given, and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not read the book).<br /><br />Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music; though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently.<br /><br />Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion on the adaption.

This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.<br /><br />The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.<br /><br />Overall I give it a 2.

just another showcase of led zeppelin at their finest and their absolute rocking best . every band member is at their best jimmy page and his bow and guitar JPJ with his thunderous bass bozo pounding away and Robert singing like theirs no tomorrow . i have to say when we get into the first song where gonna groove it is the beginning of something very special . this DVD follows zeppelin through their 11 year Carree starting in 69 in the royal Albert hall then Madison square garden 73 followed by a much older and mature band in 75 at earls court and finally a different looking band at their last English show at Knebworth in 79. this DVD is fantastic showcase of zeppelin and if your not a fan you will be after . N

The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they "walk" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with "Mirror" ("Zerkalo"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. "Mirror" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation.

This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the "chip" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.

The seasoned actors in this do know how to act and have proved that before but the Director, who also wrote and produced this travesty, is incompetent on so many levels. O.K. it's low budget but I know films students with lower budgets and lesser known actors who can do much, much better. For example, since there were people involved who should know better some of the gun rigs were totally out of place and never existed in those days. The stunt work was clumsy - the story stale and hokey. If some one gives you a copy of this use it for a coaster. By the way, I love westerns and have known many stunt men and even went to high school with one of the actors so I was looking for it to be good.

A text prologue warns us that we should not allow evil to enter our house, but I think the more apt word is "entropy." Good grief, what slobs these two babes are!<br /><br />George (Seymour Cassell) is alone in his San Francisco office and his monstrously expensive home in Tiburon while his wife and child are away in San Diego. Two girls (Sondra Locke as Jackson and Colleen Camp as Donna) knock on his door, asking directions. Well, it's raining, and they're shivering like two drenched pitiful kittens, and they're not sure of the address they're looking for, and, what with one thing and another, George invites them to come in and partake of his pizza by the fire. All three of them wind up in George's bath tub and there follows about five minutes of mostly undifferentiated nudity in double exposure, triple exposure, quadruple exposure, and dodekakuple exposure. They spend the night in a threesome and the next morning the girls fix him breakfast. But something has gotten slightly cockeyed because Georgie's guests gobble everything down with their fingers and pour ketchup and syrup all over the linen and -- "You eat like ANIMALS!", George exclaims and tells them to get out. In his dreams. <br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong. Sondra Locke is an extraordinary looking young blond with cobalt-blue eyes and Colleen Camp bounces around like a superball. You gotta say, they breed 'em mighty cute down there in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where Locke comes from, and they breed 'em with bodacious tushes too, as we can't help but note after the first five or ten minutes.<br /><br />But when the girls go berserk, so does the movie. The film is thereafter bathed in a garish green light. The pair put on ghoulish makeup and make gargoyle faces at themselves in the mirrors. They brain a delivery boy and then drown him to make sure. They cuss up a storm and smash windows and furniture. They have one of those scenes in which two people sit across the table from one another, licking food and then jumping each other's bones. <br /><br />And Georgie? They first render Georgie unconscious with mace (which contains nothing that you can't find in that little red bottle of McIlheny's Tabasco sauce in your kitchen cabinet), tie him up, pour flour and milk all over him, subject him to a psychotic trial, put him through one of those Tolstoy-type semi-executions, slap him around, dress up in outlandish costumes, then prance out on him and his virtually destroyed upper-middle-class home, and are dispatched by a delivery van ex machina.<br /><br />As for the acting, it's as if someone had told Georgie, "First act polite to these girls, then act panicked after you're tied up." And to the girls: "First act shy, unwilling to impose on anyone, then act crazy." And that's it. <br /><br />The photography and location work are straight out of a 1970s porn movie. I'm not sure that suggests a total lack of skill. It takes effort and talent to turn San Francisco ugly. The score gives us two Leitmotivs. Georgie's is some pop tune with lyrics about "being free" and "giving in." Jackson and Donna's is a catchy rinky-tink thing called "My Good Old Dad." <br /><br />I approve of the moral lesson behind the story, though. There are some things you should simply not give in to, even though they might look like a lot of fun at first. All very educational.

This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.<br /><br />This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.<br /><br />I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.

Man kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man/bear meets bear. Man/bear stays man/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.<br /><br />The 'man/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.<br /><br />Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. "D"

If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.

This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.<br /><br />Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.<br /><br />The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already.

Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.<br /><br />Or this must have been a mistake.<br /><br />This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.<br /><br />The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.<br /><br />I can puke a better award winner than this garbage.

I recently bought this movie and I do not regret having it at all as a matter of fact I am very please have this movie to add to my collection. Matt Manfredi and Phil Hay, movie directors, took less than one month to film and spent about 1 million EUR to produce this great movie. This proves that not only big productions make great movies.<br /><br />The title of this movie fits in perfectly. In computer language BUG means program error which causes reactions in computer function. Our reactions can cause these negative side effects, but also great moments of beauty. The vertiginous happenings in this movie start with the death of a BUG. A man witnesses the "crime" on the other side of the road...From there onwards everything gets complicated...<br /><br />I point out John Carrol Lynch ("Fargo"), Wallece, the man who cannot make everything right at all.

The idea of bringing Dracula to contemporary times isn't bad--after all, it might revive the series a bit by injecting a new story element into a series that Hammer has all but exhausted in a long series of generally excellent movies. However, because the present day turned out to be the crappy early 1970s, the results were pretty silly and looked more like LOVE AT FIRST BITE (a deliberate comedy). Seeing Christopher Lee in a film filled with 70s hip lingo and electric guitar chords and laughable rock music just seemed beyond stupid. To make matters worse, the acting is much more over-the-top here--with an intense and silly performance by "Johnny Alucard". I also thought it was really funny that it took Van Helsing's grandson to notice that "Alucard" is "Dracula" spelled backwards--no one else figured this out for themselves! Wow, what cunning!! <br /><br />So because so much of the movie was bad, why did it still earn an almost respectable score of 4? Well, when the story came to the expected showdown between Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and Drac (Christopher Lee), it was exciting and ended very well. Additionally, and I know this will sound very sexist, but if I had to watch a bad film, at least Stephanie Beacham's character wore some really nice outfits that revealed her ample...."talents", so to speak. So at least it was a pretty film to watch.<br /><br />By the way, the film ends with the phrase "may he rest in FINAL peace" at the end, though this was not the final Hammer Dracula film with Lee. He returned for "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" just a short time later and it was in many ways even worse than this dud of a monster film.

Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. "Kay Hoog" reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first "Dark Knight"- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less "charmingly roguish" than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.<br /><br />The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...

There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.<br /><br />The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.<br /><br />The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.

Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....

OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.

This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!!

What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.<br /><br />The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.

Actually this movie has silly moments, both in the claymation part and in the Joe Pesci and children part, and it's much worse than other MJ movies like "The Wiz", "Captain Eo" and "Ghosts". But as a die hard Michael Jackson fan since almost eleven years, (Yeah, that's half my life, you guys!), I can't complain too much about it. Just seeing this lovely guy and hearing his wonderful music is a trip to Heaven for me. But as a movie, it's not good at all, and I'm afraid, that it would get a much lower grade for me, if my darling Mike hadn't been the one starring in it. But since no one but Mike IS the moonwalker, it has to get a 7 out of 10 from me.

It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching.

This is a pretty bad movie. But not so bad as it's reputation suggests. The production values aren't too bad and there is the odd effective scene. And it does have an 80's cheezoid veneer that means that it is always kind of fun. Watch out, too, for Jimmy Nail's brief appearance - his attempt at an American accent is so astoundingly rubbish it's fantastic. Fantastic too are Sybil Danning's breasts - they make a brief appearance in the movie but the scene is repeated umpteen times in the end credits in what can only be described as the 12" remix of Sybil Danning's boobs. Has to be seen to be believed. As a horror movie it isn't scary, the effects are silly and Christopher Lee turns up to sleepwalk through his performance. I guess he was buying a new house and needed some cash for the deposit. The two central characters - the man and the woman - were so negligible that I have forgotten almost everything about them and I just watched this movie earlier tonight. The werewolves are noticeably less impressive than in the original movie, in fact, bizarrely, they sometimes look more like badly burned apes. The eastern European setting is quite good and the music provided by the new wave band Babel, while being pretty terrible, does at least give the film some added cheese.<br /><br />Overall? Good for a laugh. Not good quality but did you seriously expect it to be? And, at the very least, you've always got Sybil's knockers.

This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.<br /><br />There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.<br /><br />Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.

you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, "I am over twice your age." Okay, try triple grandpa! The "old enough to be your father" theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.

'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.

I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).<br /><br />This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.<br /><br />The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term.

I have never been as surprised by a film that was this old. Only "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" holds up this well, performance-wise. As someone that has seen heroin addiction first-hand, I was shocked at how realistic this film was. Frank Sinatra's performance is completely uncompromising, realistic, and heart wrenching. Otto Preminger's direction is perfect for the film, with long takes and a very mobile camera.<br /><br />Kim Novak's performance is good, as is Eleanor Parker's. In fact, the entire supporting cast works very well, with understated performances, as befitting this film's style. The documentary style is part of what keeps this film up to date. Highly recommended.<br /><br />8.0 out of 10

Relentlessly stupid, no-budget "war picture" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable "script", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept "action" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it.

In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.<br /><br />"Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Carroça Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach")

Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!

I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the "saloon" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.<br /><br />The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.

To keep it as simple as possible. This is a very good show. That is well written, and has a fantastic cast. It's not loaded with blood and guts. And centers around a disgraced cop and his relationship with his ex-wife, his son, his former partner (Andre Braugher), his childhood friend, now a priest (George Dzunzda), and lastly the person who happens to get into his hack in that episode. Are you likely to find something like this going on in your city NO. Is this still a good story YES. And it's nice to see a man portrayed as good father in spite of his flaws. Watch more then one ( 2-3) and you'll see why a lot of us are hooked on this show. And thank you David Morse for making this character so interesting. Another good job!

`In the tradition of 'Carrie' and 'Heathers'? Try `a shameless ripoff of not only those two films, but 'The Evil Dead' and 'The Shining' as well.' That said, they really don't make bad horror movies like this anymore, and that's a shame, 'cause it's a gas.<br /><br />Rainbow Harvest is the Winona substitute here, and although she barely does more than mumble her lines (and occasionally scream, `YOU'RE UGLY!!!' into her haunted mirror), she's Goth way before it's fashionable, so you have to respect her. (And she's quite creative about it too, accessorizing with black leather scarves and a kind of black-spray-painted Hawaiian-Punch-guy hat. Eat your heart out, Cher.)<br /><br />Karen Black overacts a bit, but she's not totally without dignity, and you can't help but sympathize with her. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who asked, `Who is that, Horse Lips from 'M.A.S.H'?' the first time she came onscreen.)<br /><br />There are decent supporting performances by Kristin Dattilo (as the square chick who befriends Rainbow), Ricky Paull Goldin (in his trademarked wisecracking hunk role), and William `Larry, Darryl and Darryl' Sanderson (as some kind of pet undertaker, or something). But it's sad to see the once smokin' Yvonne DeCarlo reduced to playing what can only be thought of as the Charlotte Rae part.<br /><br />The eighties were the heyday for hilarious, mindbogglingly dumb horror movies like this, and `Mirror, Mirror' was one of the last of its kind. Definitely worth a look.

Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of "naughty" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the "naughty" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's "naughty" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments.

I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.<br /><br />Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.<br /><br />All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies.

"House of Games" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.<br /><br />The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see.

I actually like this movie even though I don't fancy James Belushi very much. In this movie, you can actually see several big names on the rise, Linda Hamilton and Courteney Cox namely; Caine's was already big of course. The plot in this movie is simple; its just like that Sliding Door movie. It however was told in a light-hearted manner and I like the comedy moments in it. It made me trying to relive my own important moments in live, eg what if I've taken that girl out for a movie, and not the other etc. It tells us that people around us could have taken different roles in our lives if some minute details were to change. It also reminds us to be careful what we wish for. Life is not always as good on the other side as we think; maybe, what we have now is the best for us, all things considered.

Grand Central Murder (1942) Dir: S. Sylvan Simon <br /><br />Production: MGM <br /><br />This mediocre 'B' mystery was one of only five films released in 1942 with Simon as director. Surely he could have fit another Red Skelton film or two on his schedule! Anyway, Grand Central Murder is a shameless rip-off of the Thin Man films minus the wit, charm, and chemistry of the leads. We are treated to a paper thin plot that can barely support its 73 minutes, bad acting and weary gags.<br /><br />Van Heflin and Virginia Grey play Nick and Nora Char--er, Rocky and Butch Custer. He's a PI and she's his wife and sleuthing partner. They engage in "humorous" banter with each other. See? It's completely different already. Heflin's the only one here who hints at bigger and better things, although he's real close to being a jerk in this. Virginia Grey was in Another Thin Man, but again, let me stress, THIS FILM IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ONE, no sir. And just in case we start to think that this film is absolutely nothing like another film (say, THE THIN MAN) we actually like, Sam Levene pops up as the lead detective who's kind of dim and has to have Van Heflin subtly direct him toward all the important leads. Hmmm.<br /><br />Quickly, the 'murder' is that of bitchy schemer Mida King, who likes to trade up on rich men until she finds an even richer one. She's played by Patricia Dane, who's like a C- version of Hedy Lamarr, until she opens her mouth and turns into an F. There's a whole array of wacky suspects, all with their own motivation for wanting Mida dead. There's the society type, the tough talking dames, the thug, the ex-lover, and a shady theater impresario (Tom Conway, here saddled with the unlikely character name of 'Frankie Ciro'). Roman Bohnen plays a nervous, jittery type, something I believe he may have done before. Millard Mitchell plays an idiot cop who, in a running gag that won't quit, can't stop thinking about the piece of ass he's got waiting for him once this case gets wrapped up (that's right, Millard Mitchell, swordsman). Finally, in a completely ground breaking method of storytelling, something we've never seen before, all the suspects are gathered up in one place where they tell their stories (as flashbacks) to the detective, as Rocky takes mental notes, until eventually the guilty person is compelled to dramatically blurt out a confession.<br /><br />On top of the actual picture being a dud, I naively thought going in that there might be a couple of location shots of the actual 1942-era Grand Central, but alas, no. There's merely one very brief shot at the beginning. Thanks for nothing, Grand Central Murder. So, to sum up, a wee bit formulaic, but Heflin was okay.<br /><br />*½ out of 4

You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003.

Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson respectively, the second of the Universal series, where it's again established by means of a written prologue that the famed detective is legendary and spans time. This helps to comfortably set things up here in the "present" era of the early 1940's.<br /><br />In this offering, Holmes goes through a few different disguises (with Rathbone's very prominent features, is it likely that people really wouldn't recognize his true identity?) as he protects a physicist from the hands of the Nazis as well as from Holmes' greatest nemesis Professor Moriarty (now played by Lionel Atwill). The scientist has developed a bomb sight which will greatly aid in aerial bombardment, and he's promised his plans to the British. But Moriarty wants to get hold of it so he can sell them to the Nazis.<br /><br />A good entry boosted a bit by the participation of the properly villainous Atwill now cast as Moriarty (though George Zucco was no slouch himself in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). It's always intriguing watching Holmes and his greatest enemy engaging in witty banter together ("the needle to the last, eh, Holmes?").

I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo.

The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.<br /><br />This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it.

This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.<br /><br />Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.<br /><br />I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.

It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy!

American icon Henry Fonda portrays "Elegant" John Howard, an aging trucker who has had his beloved big rig "Eleanor" repossessed after a lengthy hospital stay has forced him to miss his payments. Deciding that he would like to make just one more perfect run, he breaks out of the hospital, steals back Eleanor, and hooks up with old friend Penelope Pearson (Eileen Brennan), who is in need of relocating her troupe of prostitutes.<br /><br />Fondas' wonderful performance is a natural anchor for a film that tugs at the heartstrings as effectively as it tickles the funny bone in the more comedic scenes. A superb cast including Robert Englund, as a reluctant young sidekick, Susan Sarandon (who also gets co-producer credit), and Dub Taylor (a delightful ham, as always, in the most blatantly comedic portion of the picture) helps immeasurably.<br /><br />The ultimately life-affirming nature of the picture and the poignancy of the journey carry incredible weight; this is a picture, that provided you get into it, you can remember long after it's over.<br /><br />The promise of the open road is vividly displayed here; the countryside just looks beautiful. Set to Craig Safans' wonderful music score, it's a remarkable picture in terms of aesthetics.<br /><br />It loses a little something in its final act (the characters played by John Byner and Austin Pendleton are little more than intrusions), but it still maintains its good vibes thanks to the appeal of its central characters.<br /><br />Not at all the exploitation / drive-in schlock picture one might expect from the title (especially its alternate title, "The Great Smokey Roadblock"), it's a rewarding movie experience that I can recommend without qualms.<br /><br />9/10

Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!