Datasets:

rithwik-db

/

processed_demo

like 0

I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!

1pos

And a made for TV movie too, this movie was good. the acting in it and the plot was just so great. this one of the only movies I've seen that I felt warped my mind because after seeing it I was afraid of Reaper coming to kill me through my computer screen. There were just a few minor things wrong with this movie, but it's very easily over looked.<br /><br />Antonio Sabbato Jr did an excellent role in this movie along with Janine Turner and Robert Wagner. this movie just has so much suspense and it made me wanting more because I never thought a low budget TV movie could be so powerful. After viewing this I read the novel this movie was based on (four times) and it too kicked was great. If you ever see this movie come on TV, I'd watch it. The effects in this movie were pretty well done, I honestly don't know what a live calcifying human would look like but with the way the FX team did this movie I was impressed and all it shows is that all these bad made for TV movies out there with low budgets shouldn't suck so bad.<br /><br />watch it. It's really good, no really, it is!

1pos

Last week, I took a look at the weekly Nielsen ratings, and there was Veronica Mars, supposedly "the best show you're not watching".<br /><br />Well, they're right that you're not watching it. It aired twice and was ranked 147 and 145 out of 147.<br /><br />Translation: this is the lowest-rated show on any nationally broadcast network... and deservedly so. I tried to watch it a couple of times because of all the press coverage hyping it as a "great" show, a "realistic look" at life and all such nonsense. The reality was otherwise. Veronica Mars is a bore. It's as unrealistic as it gets, and it richly deserves to be canceled.<br /><br />The only Mystery is why CW felt compelled to put on its inaugural schedule the lowest-rated show in memory, after two years of continued commercial and artistic failure.

0neg

The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.<br /><br />Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.<br /><br />The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.<br /><br />The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.

0neg

This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.<br /><br />Real Rating, -10 Disgusting

0neg

It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.<br /><br />Here's a review without pretensions:<br /><br />Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.<br /><br />Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.<br /><br />One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.<br /><br />Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.<br /><br />Unless.<br /><br />You're.<br /><br />Pretentious.

0neg

I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.<br /><br />The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.<br /><br />The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.<br /><br />Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.<br /><br />It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.<br /><br />Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.<br /><br />All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it

1pos

Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.<br /><br />With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.<br /><br />The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life.

1pos

I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.<br /><br />To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.<br /><br />S

0neg

This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night.

1pos

I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.<br /><br />I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.<br /><br />--<br /><br />

0neg

Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.<br /><br />Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better.

1pos

What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.<br /><br />Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.<br /><br />Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why? <br /><br />What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..<br /><br />Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?<br /><br />Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.<br /><br />Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.

0neg

The "movie aimed at adults" is a rare thing these days, but Moonstruck does it well, and is still a better than average movie, which is aging very well. Although it's comic moments aim lower than the rest of it, the movie has a wonderful specificity (Italians in Brooklyn) that isn't used to shortchange the characters or the viewers. (i.e. Mobsters never appear in acomplication. It never becomes grotesque like My Big Fat Greek Wedding) The secondary story lines are economically told with short scenes that allow a break from the major thread. These are the scenes that are now missing in contemporary movies where their immediate value cannot be impressed upon producers and bigwigs. I miss these scenes. It also beautifully involves older characters. The movie takes it's own slight, quiet path to a conclusion. There isn't a poorly written scene included anywhere to make some executives sphincter relax. Cage and Cher do very nice work.<br /><br />Moonstruck invokes old-school, ethnic, workaday New York much like 'Marty' except Moonstruck is way less sanctimonious.

1pos

If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.

0neg

The film is hugely enjoyable with a great cast, and excellent direction by James Eves. The movie is entertaining with a very charismatic performance from Stephanie Beecham and everyone is perfectly cast. James Eves has a good eye for casting and directs like a conductor knowing exactly when to crank up the action, fall and then rise to a climax. He does this with an element of humour, Plenty of twists, thrills and blood. This is a return of the old vampire movie, with loads of gore, blood and screams. The movie works at a great speed and the characters take you on a terrific adventure,but what makes it work is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with plenty of tongue in cheek action.Great !

1pos

I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.<br /><br />Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.<br /><br />The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.<br /><br />Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup.

1pos

This movie is so wonderful, it's hard to find words to describe it. This is the only time I can't decide which was better, the book or the movie.<br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg is awesome, and Oprah Winfrey, such a good actress, she could be funny, happy and miserable all at the same time. All together the movie was well directed by Steven Speilberg, and should not be passed up. 9/10

1pos

There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.

1pos

Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****

0neg

The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.

0neg

The only way this is a family drama is if parents explain everything wrong with its message.<br /><br />SPOILER: they feed a deer for a year and then kill it for eating their food after killing its mother and at first pontificating about taking responsibility for their actions. They blame bears and deer for "misbehaving" by eating while they take no responsibility to use adequate locks and fences or even learn to shoot instead of twice maiming animals and letting them linger.

0neg

I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.<br /><br />Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.<br /><br />There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. <br /><br />The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.<br /><br />And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.<br /><br />There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! <br /><br />It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.

0neg

This movie surprised me! Not ever having heard of Hyde of Gackt I was not expecting much! The reason I wanted to watch this movie was because somebody mentioned that the movie contained some serious action scenes in John Woo style! Normally I am very careful when this is claimed! There is only one John Woo and til this day there hasn't been one director that comes close to his brilliance when it comes to action! The fact that "Moon Child" would feature a vampire convinced me even more! How can you go wrong with gun blazing vampires! Sounds promising and interesting! The first thing I noticed about this movie that the pace was considerably slow! It takes it's time to set the mood! This movie contains some nice Hong Kong style action scenes! But "Moon Child" isn't an action movie! It is a drama about friendship and loyalty! The focus is on the characters and their relation to each other! The pop singers Hyde and Gackt do a good job in acting and are very believable as friends! The only problem I had was with the plot! A couple of times the movie seems to skip a few years without explaining what happened and why they had to skip! Example:When one member of the gang dies (very dramatic moment) Alexander Wang sees Kei (Hyde) drinking blood of one of the attackers! Without warning and explanation the movie skips 9 nine years and most of the friends aren't together anymore! Also without a proper reason given Son (Alexander Wang) and Sho (Gackt) have to kill each other! I know that this is done to add some serious drama! Because of the actors it is very effective but sometimes it does feel forced! Apart from the flaws in plot this movie has an ambiance and slickness that makes it hard not to like this movie! It is hard to explain why this movie is wonderful! But it just is! The overall experience you get is heartwarming and sincere!

1pos

This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.<br /><br />It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well. <br /><br />The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.<br /><br />Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.

0neg

I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.

0neg

Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage.

0neg

I purchased the DVD set on a recommendation from Amazon.com based on my other interests. They hit the nail on the head with this one. I remember watching the show when it was on TV but always wondered what happened to it. Ten years later, it's like watching it all again for the first time. Lucas Black as Caleb Temple and Gary Cole as Sheriff Lucas Buck are great together, even though they are somewhat rivals. Almost representing good (Caleb) and evil (Sherriff Lucas Buck). I never really understood exactly what Lucas was supposed to be, but let it suffice to say, he has some special powers that I don't believe were granted by anything Holy. He can make phones ring, writing appear, or even cause a person's emotions to change. None the less, there are a few episodes where he actually becomes the good guy in spite of it all. All in all, this is an excellent series that like so many others I can think of, (I.E. Point Pleasant, Threshold, Nowhere Man, and SeaQuest DSV just to name a few) were cancelled way before their time. The Steven King's The Dead Zone ( Sunday's USA Network) seems to be the only thing in this genre that seems to be making it. There is just nothing fit to watch on TV anymore. This is because anything that deals with Christianity and Satan is considered offensive and must be immediately pulled from TV. So, in the meantime, I'll just keep buying DVD sets and watching shows that should still be on TV but were booted off TV by religious zealots so we could watch "quality" shows like Family Guy and American Dad and The Simpsons (what a bunch of crap that is).

1pos

I agree whole-heartedly with the comments so far. I remember this documentary as being one of the most amazing and informative I've ever seen. As stated before, I recall that I began watching, thinking it was just another nature study - interesting, not necessarily special, but I was so wrong. Not only was the story of the colony incredible, but I remember the music as being so much a part of it's appeal. If I remember correctly, it was Native Americn pipes (akin to the music at the end of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest). I, too have been looking for a copy. This should be required watching for anybody, but especially the schools. It should be re-released.

1pos

Sitting on the front porch of his Burbank home, Ted Mapes told me that he and Reed Hadley wore the exact same size in every item of clothing except hat.<br /><br />Ted, one of the greatest of the stunt men, said that every time Zorro put on his mask, he was the one on the screen.<br /><br />That was a little bit of an exaggeration: There were times that Zorro was obviously Reed Hadley, but in the stunts we can be satisfied it was Ted at work.<br /><br />And what stunts! "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is, as witness the comments here, one of the greatest of serials. It is exciting and generally very well made.<br /><br />Reed Hadley was a fine actor, and, as someone else commented, he made a very good fop.<br /><br />But, admittedly, it is the action that makes this movie so great.<br /><br />And what else could we expect, with direction by that excellent team, Witney and English, with great music from the amazingly prolific William Lava (the listing here says he was uncredited, but that is incorrect; those other composers listed here were indeed uncredited, and I don't know if they did write any of the music -- it sounds like Lava), and with villainy from, among others, the great Charles King, and with dozens of bit parts?<br /><br />Also noteworthy was a villain played by the radio Tarzan, Jim Pierce, who was Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law. (I urge you to read his mini-bio.) <br /><br />There is one chapter that slows things down depressingly, but, heck, it's only a few minutes long (maybe 20) and when you wade through it, well, you're back to the excitement.<br /><br />Turner Classic Movies deserves a great big THANK YOU for presenting this excellent serial, and we should ask TCM to bring us more.<br /><br />And we should thank everyone involved that we get to see it as a chapter-play, or serial, and not as a re-cut feature.

1pos

Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.<br /><br />What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.<br /><br />Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.<br /><br />The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.<br /><br />Avoid this show at all costs!

0neg

I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs.

0neg

I am never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.

0neg

I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.<br /><br />First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.<br /><br />However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.<br /><br />Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.<br /><br />In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.<br /><br />You catch my thrift?

1pos

well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.

0neg

I'm getting a little tired of people misusing God's name to perpetuate their own bigoted view on the world. Well I don't dismiss the idea of Armageddon, or the coming of the anti-Christ, I do dismiss the idea that only certain people who live truly good lives(They seem to be mostly white Christian children) will go to Heaven, while the rest of us must suffer through a millenia of Hell on Earth, just because we weren't good enough. God may be a judge, but I don't think He is going to measure every level of goodness. Give the Creator some credit.

0neg

A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.

0neg

This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!

0neg

There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.

1pos

In New York, when the shy and lonely project manager of a design firm Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) meets Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) in the subway, he invites her to date and have dinner with him. Jenny immediately falls in love for him, they have sex and she discloses her true identity to him, telling that she is the powerful superhero G-Girl. After meeting his co-worker and friend Hannah Lewis (Anna Faris), the needy Jenny becomes jealous, controlling and manipulative, and Matt follows the advice of his best friend Vaughn Haige (Rainn Wilson) and dumps her, breaking her heart. Jenny turns Matt's life into hell, while he has a romance with Hannah. However, the archenemy of G-Girl and former high school sweetheart of Jenny, Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), proposes Matt to lure Jenny to strip her superpowers.<br /><br />"My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is delightfully silly and funny. This romantic comedy-adventure has many hilarious moments and is very entertaining. Luke Wilson is great in the role of an idiot, Anna Farris is extremely sexy as usual, and Uma Thurman is great in the role of a deranged neurotic superhero that recalls Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" or Evelyn Draper in "Play Misty For Me". My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Minha Super Ex-Namorada" ("My Super Ex-Girlfriend")

1pos

I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.<br /><br />

1pos

This Film was done in really poor taste. The script was really bad. I feel really sad for the late Gregory Peck who took on the title role of this B-movie adaptation of one of history's greatest generals. The movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the Japanese in World War 2. There was a scene where I almost vomited, it showed Macarthur in a bunker in Corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded, one legged Filipino soldier. The soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says : `no papa, no mama, no uncle sam' and Macarthur gives his little pep talk that Americans `would never abandon' the Philippines. The scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by Macarthur's words and gives him a smart salute. I mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the U.S. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. It showed that Filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great Americans solely for redemption. It blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of The Far East), these are Filipino volunteers that were integrated in the US military during world war 2, who died side by side with the Americans fighting the Japanese, who walked side by side with Americans in the death march of Bataan and defended Corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after Macarthur left for Australia with his famous `I shall return' speech. My late grandfather, a Filipino world war 2 veteran and USAFFE soldier was one of the many who fought the Japanese with honor and love for the home country. I think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that Macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the Leyte gulf landing.

0neg

Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)

0neg

The psychology of this movie is really weird to try and figure out. Its often billed as an anti-RPG movie, but its really not that simple. Here are come apparent contradictions that make me wonder just what (if anything) they're trying to say about gaming.<br /><br />They laboriously introduce all the characters home lives by way of introduction, all of them having parents who are divorced, alcoholic, and totally out of touch with their lives except for the times they're harshly pressuring them to succeed. Tom Hanks is arguably the worst off, having just failed out of another school and still dealing with a brother who disappeared and may be dead. <br /><br />Its mentioned a couple of times that they play the game to work through problems in their real lives. And sure enough, at the end, when they go to see Robbie (Hanks), they're all happy and well-adjusted, embarking on their adult careers, problems solved, games put away (Daniel doesn't even want to design computer games any more), and even Robbie's mother, who's been constantly drunk and dissatisfied, is suddenly the Happy Homemaker, looking fresh and bright and arranging flowers. <br /><br />Sure, JJ suddenly (and quite cheerfully it seems) decides to commit suicide, but the reason seems to be entirely because he's a lonely boy genius who can't get a date, and not because his character dies, as in the famous Jack Chick tract (which happens afterward anyways, and it almost seems like he does it on purpose so he can end Daniels game and get everyone to come play his. In fact, the prospect of live-action role playing in the caverns seems to be the only thing that saves him from killing himself!) And in what may be the coolest tableau scene in the whole movie, Kate, looking very fetching in chain mail, looks right at the camera and says something like, "The scariest monsters are the ones in our own minds." <br /><br />The biggest fantasy element in this movie is the two muggers passing up the rich couple so they can rob the dirty, homeless-looking guy of his magic beans. The recurring theme (a "The Way We Were" for the 80s)might have been poignant at the end, but as a way to kick off a movie is downright depressing and seems out of place. And for one final mystery, our hero, wearing full Pardu regalia, has a psychotic break, becomes his character completely and embarks on his quest, so of course the first thing he does is change into 20-century street clothes. <br /><br />So maybe the movie's irrational, but I guess its dealing with an irrational topic. In those days a circle of kids with dice and pencils was regarded as tainted and possibly possessed, and you could go insane if they spoke their mumbo-jumbo at you. The anti-game paranoia is pretty much summed up in the first scene, where the reporter asks the cop whats going on, the cop says a kids lost in the tunnels and there's a chance Mazes and Monsters is somehow involved. The reporter admits to being vaguely familiar with the game (although he allows his own children to play it), then turns to the camera and reels off a polished spiel that blames the game for everything and admits no possibility of another explanation. In the end, its no masterpiece, but interesting as made-for-TV movies go.

0neg

Writers Perry and Randy Howze crafted a very engaging little story in "Chances Are." <br /><br />Using the idea of a reincarnated man who happens to return to his former wife's home many years later, the plot takes unexpected, delightful turns.<br /><br />Twenty four year old Robert Downey, Jr. renders a delightful performance, ably assisted by Cybil Shepherd as the widow and Ryan O'Neal as a good friend. <br /><br />This trio has just the right chemistry for this caper, playing off one another with a graceful style. I've watched this film a number of times on tv, and each time found it most enjoyable.

1pos

One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy

1pos

Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)

0neg

This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!<br /><br />

1pos

For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.<br /><br />This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.<br /><br />If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.

1pos

Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living "under a rock" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life !

1pos

When I was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had Children's Matinees every Saturday and Sunday afternoon (anybody remember those?). They showed this thing one year around Christmas time. Me and some friends went to see it. I expected a cool Santa Claus movie. What I got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie.<br /><br />Something about Santa Claus and Merlin the Magician (don't ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting Satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns!). The images had me cringing in my seat. I always found Santa spooky to begin with so that didn't help. The guy in the Satan suit didn't help. But what REALLY horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled Santa's sled. When he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements--I remember having nightmares about those things! All these years later I still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what I saw. My friends were sort of frightened by it too. I just saw an ad for it on TV and ALL those nightmares came roaring back. This is a creepy, disturbing little Christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. Avoid this one--unless you really want to punish your kids. This gets a 1.

0neg

This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. "The Far Country" is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his "deputies" will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright.

1pos

I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!!

0neg

Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.<br /><br />Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.<br /><br />Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.<br /><br />Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.<br /><br />In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.<br /><br />This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right.

0neg

At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.<br /><br />The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.<br /><br />In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort.

0neg

"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."

0neg

"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Rino Di Silvestro's "La lupa mannara" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening "flashback" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.<br /><br />As a film, "Werewolf Woman" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players.

0neg

Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .<br /><br />SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.<br /><br />Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****

0neg

This story was probably one of the most powerful I have ever taken in. John Singleton certainly went above and beyond when putting together this educational masterpiece. Brilliant performances by the whole cast, but Epps and Rapaport turned in the best and most convincing of either young star's career.<br /><br />However, as a college student myself, many of the issues that Singleton touched on were taken to the extreme. In a sense that, while they are issues faced on many college campuses, they aren't presented as big or out in the open as this movie would make one believe. In some instances, it almost seemed ridiculous to think that something of this nature could actually occur. However, aside from the fact that it was a little over dramatic, the film was brilliant and left me stunned, unable to talk, just think. One of the things from this picture I will remember forever, was a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character, "Knowledge is power, without knowledge, you cannot see your power." Brilliant, just brilliant.

1pos

Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt.

0neg

All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.<br /><br />I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.<br /><br />The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.<br /><br />I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.<br /><br />Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.<br /><br />Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.<br /><br />I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?

0neg

Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash.

0neg

This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.<br /><br />Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.<br /><br />For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989.

0neg

I once lived with a roommate who attempted suicide, and our apartment was in a building where you could get a fifty dollar noise violation for sneezing after midnight - so, needless to say, I can easily relate to Polanski's "The Tenant." <br /><br />But I also enjoy the film for other reasons. I'm not sure that it works, on the whole - the Polanski character's descent into paranoia and madness, which takes up the final half hour or so, seems rather jarring and bizarre. Ebert, for one, was totally unconvinced, and he slapped the movie with a vicious one-star review. But I think that individual scenes and moments work beautifully, so even though I don't quite understand the whole film - what does Egyptology have to do with it, for example? - I still have an overall positive impression of it.<br /><br />I love the obnoxious friend portrayed by Bernard Fresson, for example. God, how many times have I settled for having stupid friends like that instead of no friends at all! I love the movie theater scene - the funniest "making out" moment in the history of film, I'd say. And boy, do I love Isabelle Adjani - she's so foxy in this movie, it's almost unbelievable. And she gives a great performance, as always.<br /><br />Polanski is a good actor, too; I don't agree with the occasional disparaging remarks made about his performance here. His character is supposed to be low-key and thoughtful, so his low-key performance fits. I, for one, found him perfectly sympathetic - though he did lose me a bit when he started dressed in drag for no clearly discernible reason.<br /><br />Yes, the movie's obscure. And slow. But it captures the alienating qualities of apartment living - something I've done entirely too much of - so I dig it. It's funny how all you need is a common reference point, and suddenly a weirdo movie like this becomes deeply significant! Definitely worth picking up for pocket change on DVD.

1pos

I would just like to state that this may be biased, as I am a producer on the film. However, I will maintain some sense of dignity.<br /><br />The star of the film, Oscar Ovies, gives a stellar performance as Jeff Grinderlin, a nebbish hypochondriac who spends more time worrying than living. He brings a certain touch to his character that really allows the audience to connect with him, by stating his mind often and with a sense of harsh comedy. His mother, played by Christine Haber, is the constant support beam, that without, he would crumble upon himself. His friends also lend a hand in Jeff's life, often making choices for him rather than letting him use his free will... which often times he neglects is there anyway. <br /><br />The writing is superb, and the conversations flow like scenes from a Kevin Smith movie, with half as much Ben Affleck boo-hoo fests.<br /><br />The camera work is a little shoddy at some points, and the sound could also use a boost, however the performances out shine the minor details. It is also backed by a beautiful soundtrack with local talents and an exceptional composer.<br /><br />All in all, this was a treat. A rare gem, among many jewels.

1pos

This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?

0neg

One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.<br /><br />The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements.

1pos

I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction. <br /><br />A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell. <br /><br />Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.<br /><br />Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)<br /><br />There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience. <br /><br />Grand Canyon is a very human film.

1pos

I cannot believe that this movie was ever created. I think at points the director is trying to make it an artistic piece but this just makes it worse. The zombies look like they applied too much eye makeup. The zombies are only in the movie for a few minutes. Finally, there are maybe five or six zombies total, definitely not a nation. The best part of the movie, if there is one is definitely the credits because the painful experience was finally finished. Again to reiterate other user comments, the voodoo priestesses are strange and do not make much sense in the whole movie. Also, there is a scene with a snake and a romanian girl that just does not make sense at all. It is never explained.

0neg

I loved this mini series. Tara Fitzgerald did an incredible job portraying Helen Graham, a beautiful young woman hiding, along with her young son, from a mysterious past. As an anglophile who loves romances... this movie was just my cup of tea and I would recommend it to anyone looking to escape for a few hours into the England of the 1800's. I also must mention that Toby Stephens who portrays the very magnetic Gilbert Markham is reason enough to watch this wonderful production.

1pos

I'm not kidding about that summary and vote! The video distributors have packaged this as just another typical '80s werewolf movie, but it is in fact the greatest parody of the horror genre that you can imagine, having done for the horror movie what "Blazing Saddles" did for the western. I have seen plenty of comedies - good, bad, stupid, weird, etc. (usually walking away unimpressed), and I think that comedy must be the most difficult genre for filmmakers and actors to work in - it takes just the right kind of touch to make things successful, and part of that is having good ideas. "Full Moon High" is bulging with good ideas - so many, in fact, that it can easily put the Zucker/Abrams team of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" to shame. One of the best of these is the very presence of Ed McMahon in a starring role as a John Birch-style right-wing crackpot. The jokes, non-sequiturs, wisecracks and word-play are literally non-stop and everything, including the kitchen sink, has been thrown in. The ironic tone is very similar to that of "Back to the Future." <br /><br />Some people (i.e. almost every reviewer here) must have been turned off by the spirit of anarchy here, but I almost died of laughter, and this is one of those movies in which you never know what kind of insane situation will transpire next. Since B-movie extraordinaire Larry Cohen had not made a straight comedy before this, one gets the sense that he was making up for lost time by including any joke he or his collaborators could think of. If Mel Brooks had made this, the critics would have labelled it a comic masterpiece, but because it was made by Cohen, it has been dismissed as schlock. Critical reviews have called this movie too "silly." SILLY? What is a comedy supposed to be - serious?! Anyway, I laughed out loud more for this movie than any other I can think of. Cohen makes fun of everyone - himself included, with plenty of references to his usual brand of low-rent film-making; he and the actors must have had a complete blast making this.<br /><br />The humor is very Mel Brooks-ish, and anyone who loves Jewish humor or watches a lot of B-movies (especially horror) will love this. Trust me: the movie isn't too hard to find, and as long as you accept it for what it is - a roller-coaster of belly laughs with no pretense of social value whatsoever - then you'll truly enjoy it!!<br /><br />One sidenote: this movie should somehow go down in history as the one thing Bob Saget ever starred in (albeit briefly) that was actually funny.

1pos

I first saw this film as a young boy and recently purchased it on DVD.<br /><br />James Stewart brings great depth to the role of Chip Hardesty, a hardworking and dedicated FBI agent. His life in the Bureau is intercut with his family life, which is not all rosy. His wife (an excellent portrayal by Vera Miles) lives in fear of the dangerous nature of his job, and they even separate for a time; Chip's best friend and fellow agent Sam Crandall (Murray Hamilton) is killed in a gunfight; Chip's son, Mike, enlists in the Marines during World War II. Through it all, the family carries on with bravery and dignity.<br /><br />The action sequences are quite exciting and the semi-documentary style of the film works effectively. And the music by Max Steiner says it all; fidelity, bravery and integrity.<br /><br />This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the FBI and, yes, to J. Edgar Hoover as well. If Mr. Hoover's type of vigilance had been observed, we might have been spared 9/11, the surge in crimes against children and many of the venal politicians we've had to put up with since his passing.

1pos

I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.<br /><br />Chamberlain: "You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?" And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, "Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?" It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.<br /><br />The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.<br /><br />I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.<br /><br />If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments," but they're brothers under the skin.<br /><br />But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like "Mad Max," and some subtle and dramatic, like "Lantana." I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try "Picnic at Hanging Rock" for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood.

1pos

In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!<br /><br />Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free.

0neg

One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD.

1pos

I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.<br /><br />For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!<br /><br />The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...<br /><br />The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.<br /><br />Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.<br /><br />This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home.

1pos

Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.

1pos

Weak scripts at times? Yep! Cheesy special effects at times? Yep! Deliciously guilty pleasure most of the time? Yep! More about Carl Kolchak and Darren McGavin? Yep! I always enjoyed science fiction as a kid, but found so much of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy/horror stuff as just so much crap. It took Abbott and Costello to give me a new perspective on the classic Universal monsters, and it took Carl Kolchak to win me over to the "dark side" of entertainment. The Duke had Rooster Cogburn, Eastwood had Dirty Harry, Garner had Maverick and Rockford, Selleck had Magnum, and Darren McGavin had Carl Kolchak. Mixed in with all those weak scripts, cheesy special effects, that baroque group of supporting characters and actors and guest stars, there was Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak. He had a wry sense of humor in spite of the danger, was an idealist in his pursuit of the truth, and a realist when it came to accepting the obligatory incompetence and eventual cover-up by government officials. Additionally, unlike 98% of us, Kolchak was willing to stick his neck out and do what needed to be done, even if it meant his demise, the end of his journalistic career, or jail time. For all his faults, including no taste in clothes, Carl Kolchak was a man of charm and wit who drove a beautiful classic yellow Mustang (which was an old used car at the time) on his way to save the day for humanity. As good as any other fictional hero Carl Kolchak was the everyman hero brought to life every week for one season thanks to Darren McGavin. Now that he's passed on and his show is on DVD, I hope he's having as much fun watching me watch him have fun playing Kolchak The Night Stalker all over again!

1pos

Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.

1pos

This is by far the worst film I have seen in my entire life. The acting is poor and the storyline is almost incomprehensible. Whether or not you like lightships or any ships for that matter is irrelevant. As for special effects the film has none. The whole film crew were probably on the boat out in rough seas rather than in a studio and when some of the men are "stabbed" (if you can even call it that) their reactions are totally unreal. The guns are more quiet than a mute. How this film could have one two awards puts serious questions to the state of the human mind. Well thats about it. This review is probably more fun to read than the film is to watch. If anyone is considering watching it or buying it I would seriously advise you against it for obvious reasons. I have said that it includes a spoiler. If the fact that some people get stabbed and a gun gets fired is a plot giveaway. I suppose it is because they are the only good parts of the film.

0neg

Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.<br /><br />The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.<br /><br />Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.<br /><br />And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.<br /><br />The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.<br /><br />**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.<br /><br />I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.

0neg

You probably all already know this by now, but 5 additional episodes never aired can be viewed on ABC.com I've watched a lot of television over the years and this is possibly my favorite show, ever. It's a crime that this beautifully written and acted show was canceled. The actors that played Laura, Whit, Carlos, Mae, Damian, Anya and omg, Steven Caseman - are all incredible and so natural in those roles. Even the kids are great. Wonderful show. So sad that it's gone. Of course I wonder about the reasons it was canceled. There is no way I'll let myself believe that Ms. Moynahan's pregnancy had anything to do with it. It was in the perfect time slot in this market. I've watched all the episodes again on ABC.com - I hope they all come out on DVD some day. Thanks for reading.

1pos

Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, "Wild Wild Sabrina" where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important.

1pos

this movie is another on the list that i did not want to see. i was talked into it and dragged into the theater, but boy am i glad for that. i thought it was going to be just another love story, but it turns out to be SOOO much more than that. definatly an intellectual flick, one of those movies you have to pay attention to.

1pos

Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended.

0neg

Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.

0neg

I rarely write reviews for IMDb.com, but I feel compelled to warn potential viewers that this movie is terrible. Just terrible. I like Shaw Bros. movies (I'm not a hater.), and I had high expectations for this one since I found it listed on many "10 Best Kung Fu/Martial Arts Movies" websites. (I'm now convinced that those 10 Best lists are all cut-and-paste jobs.) First of all, there's barely any action in the film. Most of the movie consists of talking about the plot, which is an amazing feat because it's thin at best. And the action itself may have been impressive back in 1978, but it's routine by today's standards. A special warning to Netflix users: the DVD they ship is terrible; the picture is horrendous and it's not even 16:9 enhanced.

0neg

I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some "inside" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the "festival" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz.

1pos

What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go...

1pos

Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.<br /><br />Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.<br /><br />Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!<br /><br />The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.<br /><br />So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!<br /><br />**** out of ****

1pos

This movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.<br /><br />*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS<br /><br />It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.<br /><br />Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.

0neg

How many fricken' times do we have to see a spook walking by in the background & peaking through a mirror's reflection? It's been done in two dozen movies in recent memory & four dozen times in this choppy, poorly done film. There were only two freaky moments to appreciate....when the ghosts invaded the personal spaces of two characters. Speaking of characters, the acting was as flat as the Diet Coke in the 64 oz. cup I was drawing it from. The side characters could have been pulled from various Scooby Doo cartoons. There was the friendly, aged sheriff. There was the kooky weirdo living in the backwoods with the Alabama drawl. Lots'o'characters with no development. The most disturbing image was that of a murdered child in the beginning. But rather than explore the child's murder, which would have been interesting, they just let us know that she was dead & her parents had a hard time reconciling her death with the community & each other. When they reach the cabin, the scenes rarely flowed together....with flashing images of the dead daughter interjected here & there. Oh...and the eerie sounds were also overdone. You know what I mean....creaking doors that open by themselves, crickets in the forest, yada yada yada. Ooooohhhh. Haven't seen that before. Again, you'll see the amazing self-opening door in the movie over and over an over again. NOTE TO DIRECTOR: a scary scene is only scary if it's not repeated every 5 minutes in the same film. Think these things out before calling out "it's a wrap!"

0neg

Frankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.

0neg

Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.<br /><br />Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.<br /><br />Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.<br /><br />Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).<br /><br />After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.<br /><br />It really IS only a movie as they say..

0neg

Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable.

0neg

Even thought I'm not the biggest of Cher fans, this movie was her crowning achievement. Granted, there were long term side-effects and risks of brain damage, memory loss (and) intellectual impairment, upon the screening such a film. A 1989 survey of Moonstruck fans by the UK Advocacy Network revealed that one-third of 300 Moonstruck fans surveyed believed Moonstruck had damaged them and an astounding 80% claimed it had irreparably destroyed their minds.<br /><br />Cher plays someone very un-Cher in this movie, a dowdy young widow named Loretta living in New York with her extended family. They're anti-American, pro-Italian and always at each other in someway. She has been going out with Johnny Camarary for a while, a nice mamma's boy man, and he asks her to marry him. She says yes. I loved her mom's questions: "Do you love him Loretta?", "No.", "Good. If you love him he'll drive you crazy because they know they can. But you like him then?", "Oh yeah, he's a sweet man Ma". When Johnny goes off to Sicily to care for his dying mother, he asks that Loretta make contact with his brother who he's been estranged from for years.<br /><br />This victory for human rights carries even greater significance, as Sicily was the birthplace of electroshock treatment. In 1938, Italian psychiatrist Ugo Cerletti, saw slaughterhouse workers using electric shock devices to cause epileptic fits in pigs, easing the job of slitting their throats. Cerletti was inspired, and began experimenting with electroshock on humans, developing the first Electroshock machine. Broken bones and fractured vertebrae that resulted from the convulsions appeared to be of little concern.<br /><br />This was,in so many ways, an anti-American movie. It's about love, to be sure, but it's also about infidelity, secrets, lonely people, and strange behavior brought on by American policies. The characters, from the frumpy BoBo at the favorite restaurant, the aunt and uncle, her parents and their problems, the ancient grandfather and his dogs are all well developed and intrinsic characters. It's somewhat of a chick flick, as it's how Loretta stops being a dowdy stuffed shirt and awakens the flower of the inner vamp. It's a Cinderella story in many ways, and that is every little girl's dream to emerge from the ugly duckling into a beautiful swan...<br /><br />Assuming free and fully informed Consent, it is well to reaffirm the individual's right to pursue happiness through brain damage if he or she so chooses. But we might ask ourselves whether we, as fans of cinema, though in no way sworn to any Hippocratic Oath, should be offering it.

0neg

Offbeat and rather entertaining sleeper concerning two very different brothers who are both not only so-called "fire starters" (think Stephen King's snore-fest of a book with the same name), but also forever at odds with each other over a woman who has a rather nasty habit of being a pyromaniac! Good special effects (especially towards the end), quirky performances from a pretty talented trio of actors and topped by a really interesting and oddly appropriate soundtrack ultimately make "Wilder Napalm" a unique treat of a film to watch...if you can find it that is! On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to snatch it up (so to speak) from the two-dollar bin at my local video-rental store. (*** out of *****)

1pos

Caution: May contain spoilers...<br /><br />I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.<br /><br />As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.<br /><br />Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.<br /><br />A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.<br /><br />Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.<br /><br />9 out of 10 stars

1pos

If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,<br /><br />just people with a sense of humor.<br /><br />For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.

1pos

Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.<br /><br />HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!

0neg