Datasets:

zheng438

/

imdb-truncated

like 0

The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.<br /><br />This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.<br /><br />I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.<br /><br />Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."<br /><br />First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.

One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain

I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).<br /><br />Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.<br /><br />The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.<br /><br />Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).<br /><br />In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.<br /><br />3 out of 10.

Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film.<br /><br />"Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."<br /><br />How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.<br /><br />San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE.

I think this movie is a very funny film and one of the best 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very catchy spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very good ending in is very funny (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a pretty cool dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, but that is what makes the film funny, it is a comedy, loosen up!! I love the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because it is interesting to see how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, and with this films, it is hard to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) or the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, but this film carries it off successfully. The two garbage men are so funny, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is a must for your collection and is one of the best, most entertaining, funniest, best storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!!

DOes anyone know where or how i can get a copy of this film?!! I've been searching for way too long, someone help! Back in 1997 my girlfriends and i were extras on this Long Island based film, and we actually never got to see it. :( <br /><br />i was hoping i could find a copy somehow so i can finally check it out, and share it with the girls! Is there anyone out there who knows where to get a copy of this, so i can stop driving myself crazy? (also, it doesn't matter if its in in VHS format, i'm still in the ice age myself.) If you, or anyone you know, has a copy of this film please help, i would be willing to pay for a good copy of it!

This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.<br /><br />The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.<br /><br />The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.<br /><br />Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.

I loved this film! I'm a true Tom Hanks fan, and I have always been impressed with all of his work. From his most dramatic roles like Cast Away, The Green Mile, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 & Philadelphia. To his hilarious roles like A League of Their Own, Turner and Hooch, Catch Me If You Can, The Lady Killers, Big & of course Toy Story. But in this film Hanks isn't the only great actor who lights up the screen. Tyler Hoechlin, an up and coming star who shows great promise in Hollywood co stars as Hanks son and delivers nothing short of a great performance. He is certainly someone to watch out for over his career, I believe he will do great things. Paul Newman as always delivers a brilliant performance on screen. He is truly a legend. We can't forget the people who didn't have such big roles in the film, but still helped make it great. The beautiful & very talented Jennifer Jason Leigh, who's performance in Bastard Out of Carolina & Single White Female I will never forget, brings her grace to the screen as Hank's wife in the film and does a superb job. Liam Aiken is another found treasure in film. He does such a great job with such a small role, and like his roles in Lemony Snickets, and Sweet November, and I Dreamed Of Africa he gives a great performance.

After you see Vertigo, then watch Bell, Book and Candle, made within months of each other.<br /><br />My second favorite Kim Novak film, with Picnic, coming in as third.<br /><br />All three performances are great, Vertigo, being the best, of all.<br /><br />They came to my nowhere Kansas Prairie town, near by, at Salina, Kansas in the 50s, to film, Picnic. <br /><br />Bell, Book and Candle's musical score, I believe is one of Alex North's. Perfect for this bit of comedy.<br /><br />After Vertigo, Stewart and Novak, did this comedy, how amusing to note the dramatic contrast.<br /><br />Worth your time, if you like Kim Novak. The Greta Garbo of my youth.

Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox

Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.<br /><br />Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him. <br /><br />What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.<br /><br />Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.<br /><br />Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.<br /><br />And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys.

I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.<br /><br />Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.<br /><br />I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.<br /><br />If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.

This is one of the better comedies that has ever been on television. Season one was hilarious as were most of the following seasons. The only reason that I give this show a 9/10 is because of the unfortunate final season. The only good part of the final season was the finale. My favorite part of this show was the scenes that cut to people's imaginations, often depicting the characters in famous TV shows or movies from the 70's. It is a rare show in that i liked every character (with the exception of the final season...too late to try to develop a new character and fez wasn't nearly as funny). Red's foot in your ass comments never got old, nor did Kelso's stupidity. Bravo to fox for keeping such a good show so long, too long even.

I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.<br /><br />1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?<br /><br />In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!<br /><br />2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.<br /><br />For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.<br /><br />This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )<br /><br />I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.

Long before "Brokeback Mountain" (about 23 years before), "Deathtrap" was the first time I ever saw two men passionately kissing on screen, and frankly, I was shocked. I understood it in terms of the plot, and it didn't really upset my sensibilities (not much), but it was the first time I ever saw it, at least, in a "mainstream" movie. I thought it was a gutsy move for its time, and took courage for them to try it, especially Christopher Reeve, in the midst of his time as PG-rated Superman. Male bisexuality on screen may have hit its stride with "Brokeback," but it's interesting to note this much-earlier incarnation.

I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection!

Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.

I just watched the documentary "Fog City Mavericks" on the Starz cable TV network. It is without a doubt, one of my most enjoyable viewing experiences ever! It chronicles the San Francisco Bay area artists and creative talent responsible for the some of the best films ever made. In addition to the well-known artists listed, t also includes segments with Irvin Kershner, Caleb Deschanel and a segment about Pixar Animation Studios. I hope it will be released on DVD-this is a must for any collection about cinema history and brilliant film-making. If you are even remotely interested in movies and the people who create them, you will not be disappointed.

"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed.

Gentleman Jim not really a boxing film. It is a vehicle for Errol Flynn as Jim Corbett. But having said that, the boxing scenes are a real eye-opener to the modern viewer. There are no 12 round, points decisions here.<br /><br />Errol Flynn plays the Irish bank clerk who gets a shot at the heavyweight world title. Flynn is well suited to the role of suave but unpredictable Corbett. His opponent John Sullivan is still better however, a bruiser of the old school played by Ward Bond.<br /><br />The theme of the film is a man pushing for his big chance. Corbett leaves his mundane life behind and builds a new persona as Gentleman Jim. Jim is a chancer who can adapt to any social environment. He is a liar and an egotist. Sullivan the heavyweight boxing champion is portrayed as a simple brute but his honesty and sportsmanship gives a certain contrast to the main character.<br /><br />There is action and excitement aplenty and a wonderful ending with the requisite redemption for all. And Errol Flynn gets the girl.

What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!

I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.<br /><br />As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10

This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.<br /><br />The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.<br /><br />The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.<br /><br />This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.<br /><br />The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.<br /><br />A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time.

A great film this, and a shame that it will receive little attention outside of arthouse circles and students who stay up until two in the morning to watch it on Channel Four.<br /><br />The plot is a simple one but works very effectively, the blurring between child-like fantasy and hard-hitting nightmare is very well blurred. The budget looks pretty low, but to the credit of those involved it doesn't show too often. It also hasn't dated that much either.<br /><br />I was lucky enough to tape this off the telly when it was on a few years ago, and it has withstood half-a-dozen viewings. It's one of those films that won't appeal to all; though as usual, those with a more thoughtful approach to cinema would get a lot out of this.<br /><br />Charlotte Buerke puts in a good performance as Anna, the spoilt brat and it is a shame she seems to have gone from the acting scene. Cross is also very good, carrying the stature of his character very well within the context of the picture.<br /><br />There are some genuinely (and I don't say that lightly) disturbing moments in this film, both half-second shockers and more drawn-out tensions. Watch it with the lights out!<br /><br />Highly recommended.<br /><br />9/10<br /><br />

This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.<br /><br />Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent.

It was on at 7:30am, too close to school to see very often. The animation & computer graphics were spectacular for the time. The idea of cowboys & ordinary people casually throwing around space vehicles & robots was amazing. Maybe it inspired Treasure Planet.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's really boring in the DVD format. The shows are all basically identical. When viewing non-sequential episodes on a DVD, you're stoned by disk #3. By today's standards, the animation is spotty. We don't notice the computer graphics anymore and focus on how corny the characters are instead.<br /><br />The bright spots are the heroine characters. They were a lot more believable, took themselves more seriously than modern heroines, and weren't corny. They actually saved men.

I had seen 'Kalifornia' before (must be about 10 years ago) and I still remember to be very impressed by it. That's why I wanted to see it again and all I can say is that it still hasn't lost its power, even though I'm used to a lot more when it comes to movies than that I was ten years ago.<br /><br />'Kalifornia' tells the tale of the writer Brian Kessler and his girlfriend Carrie Laughlin, a photographer, who want to move to California. But instead of stepping on a plain and flying right to the state where they say it never rains, they choose to make a trip by car. He wants to write a book about America's most famous serial killers and she will make the matching pictures. But because their car uses an enormous amount of petrol, they decide to take another couple with them, so they can spread the costs of the trip. Only one couple has answered the add, so they will automatically be the lucky ones. But they haven't met each other yet and when seeing the other couple for the first time, when their trip has already started, Carrie is shocked. Without wanting to be prejudiced, she can only conclude that Early Grayce and Adele Corners are poor white trailer park trash. She definitely doesn't want them in her car, but Brian doesn't really mind to take them with them and decides to stop and pick them up anyway. At first the couple doesn't seem to be that bad after all, but gradually Early Grayce changes from a trashy hillbilly into a remorseless murderer...<br /><br />Not only is the story very impressive, so is the acting from our four leads. Brad Pitt is incredible as Early Grayce. His performance in this movie may well be his best ever. The same for Juliette Lewis. She plays the childish and naive girlfriend that doesn't want to hear a bad word about her Early and does that really very well. But David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes are a surprise as well. They both did a very good job and I really wonder why we never heard anything from Forbes again since this movie, because she really proves to have a lot of talent.<br /><br />Overall this is a very good and impressive psychological thriller with a very powerful story, but because of the graphic violence, I can imagine that it may not be to everybody's taste (although I don't really see another way how to portray a serial killer in a believable way). Personally I really liked this movie a lot and the violence never bothered me (it's a part of the story that's too important to be left out). I reward this movie with an 8/10.

If you are having a bad day,or bad week. If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh and forget about your troubles. I don't think Role Models is that movie for you.<br /><br />The film centers around Danny(Paul Rudd) and Wheeler(Seann William Scott) Two juice promoters, who go to schools promoting the product, telling kids to stay off drugs, and more juice. But Danny is having the worst week ever, and crashes his company car, with Wheeler in the seat next to him. His soon to be ex girlfriend Beth(Elizabeth Banks) who is a lawyer, manages to avoid getting them jail time, by doing hours of community service, volunteering at a big brother place called Sturdy Wings led by Gayle(Jane Lynch). Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie(Bobb'e J Thompson) who is 10 years old, and has a foul mouth like he's Chris Rock. Danny is assigned to Augie(McLovins, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who likes to dress like a knight, and fight like he is in medieval times. But will this be good for Danny and Wheeler, or will they be better off in jail?<br /><br />Okay I'm not gonna beat around the bush, this movie was very unpleasant in many ways. Namely the Ronnie character, hearing those bad words coming out of a kid that young, was very shocking. If he was a little bit older, it would not have mater'd as much. I mean what where his parents thinking, when they sign'd him on to this. Elizabeth Banks character is so unwatchable, maybe I was supposed to feel bad for her character, but I felt nothing, because she is annoyingly predictably portrayed as a female who would be played in these types of comedies. And Jane Lynch, who's the worst of the worst. She delivers the most overacting performance ever. Playing a former drug addict, who acts like she still is on drugs. Listening to her give all that annoying dialog, made me want to throw my head up against the wall. Seann William Scott once again playing another Stifler like character, he should really try to separate himself, and this film won't do it. And the more Scott tries to hard to be funny, is what keeps him from being funny.<br /><br />Now Paul Rudd on the other hand, I'm gonna separate from the others in the film, cause he manages to deliver a solid performance, although he does not get higher laughs, but he is the most interesting character from the rest. Cause Rudd does not overact, and does not try so hard. The scenes with him and Mintz-Plasse are watchable. But the rest of the film is so stupid, it picks up at times. But it becomes so predictable and uninteresting. It is a reminder that these types of comedies try nothing new, there all the same, they take no chances. Role Models is an example of that.

Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.<br /><br />Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.<br /><br />Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.<br /><br />Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.<br /><br />All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...

The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.<br /><br />Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button.

Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.

Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"

The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out.

1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.

I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it

This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.<br /><br />The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).<br /><br />The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.<br /><br />"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time.

This place in England during 1940. Three orphans (Carrie, Charles and Paul) are sent to live with Miss Price (Angela Lansbury). She doesn't want them but reluctantly takes them in. It seems she is studying to be a witch through a correspondence course with the College of Witchcraft. (OK--I realize this is a family film but--College of Witchcraft??? Come ON!!) Before she can finish the course though the college is closed because of the war (???) and she seeks down the head Professor Browne (David Tomlinson). And her and the kids travel around on a bed with the help of a magical bedknob.<br /><br />I first saw this when I was 9 and vaguely remember loving it. It sure doesn't hold up as an adult! The story is silly (even for a fantasy), the kids are terrible actors and one of them (Charles) is incredibly obnoxious. Also Roddy McDowall is third billed and only appears in two short scenes! There's also a trip to the Isle of Naboombu which is run by animated animals. I thought that might be fun but the animation is poor (for Disney) and it has a very violent and far too long soccer game between the animals. There are a few saving graces here: Lansbury and Tomlinson are just great; the songs (while forgettable) are pleasant; the long dance sequence on Portobello Road is very colorful and full of energy and the Oscar-winning special effects are still pretty impressive at the end. But the weak story line, poor animation and unlikable kids really pull this one down. I heard the extended version is even worse! I can only give this a 7.

For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen.

Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.<br /><br />There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.<br /><br />The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.<br /><br />I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.

This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.

the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie.

I first saw this movie on some movie channel (HBO?) some time ago. I was a fan of Public Enemy, NWA and other early rap and had seen CB4 in theaters. Anyway, the promo for it caught my eye, and I wanted to see what it was all about. Well, right off the bat I knew it was going to be good (WARNING!) and I was right. The parody songs alone make this movie worth watching over and over (My Peanuts), but the overall flow and delivery of the movie was great. You've got to love the satire of rap groups (obviously NWA), certain rappers (Eazy E, Flava Flav, Ice Cube), and the humor of the three members of NWH. Who can forget Tone Deaf scratching with his ass? It's too bad this movie didn't get the credit it deserved, as it was overshadowed by CB4 during their releases, but in my opinion is a much better film. If you know and like 90's 'gangster' rap, you'll be watching and laughing with this movie for a long time. If you aren't into or don't like 'rap', you'll enjoy the jokes at the expense of the genre.

Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.

I loved the story. Somewhere, a poster said there are no families like the one portrayed in this film. Well maybe there ought to be. I thought everybody seemed really human and believable. What a top notch cast. What great music on the soundtrack. What a nice this, and what a nice that, but most of all, I will say two words to recommend this film.<br /><br />Steve Carell.<br /><br />He really showed a nice, subtle depth that touched me. He was truly commanding as a widower who had dedicated himself maybe a little too much to being a good dad first, at the cost of denying his own needs.<br /><br />Did he act like a petulant ass? Why, yes he did.<br /><br />And you see, that's what was perfect about this film. The actor who played this character made me believe he was FEELING something, and not simply ACTING like he was feeling something, and he conveyed to me perfectly what it was that he was feeling, and what he was feeling was denied.<br /><br />Denied happiness.<br /><br />Denied fulfillment.<br /><br />Denied love.<br /><br />Losing your love is painful beyond belief, and many who do so will never feel something like that again.<br /><br />Beautiful film.<br /><br />I gave it an eight out of ten.

Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.<br /><br />To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact. <br /><br />The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.<br /><br />Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films.

I just saw this film @ TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival). Fans of Hal Hartley will not be disappointed!! And if you are not familiar with this director's oeuvre ... doesn't matter. This film can definitely stand all on its own. I have to go the second screening ... it was amazing I need to see it again -- and fast!! <br /><br />This film is very funny. It's dialogue is very smart, and the performance of Parker Posey is outstanding as she stars in the title role of Fay Grim. Fay Grim is the latest feature revisiting the world and characters introduced in the film Henry Fool (2000). Visually, the most salient stylistic feature employs the habitual use of the canted (or dutch) angle, which can be often seen in past Hartley works appearing in various shorts, available in the Possible Films: short works by Hal Hartley 1994-2004 collection, and in The Girl from Monday (2005).<br /><br />I viewed this film most aptly on Sept 11th. Textually, Fay Grim's adventure in this story is backdropped against the changed world after September 11, 2001. Without going into major spoilers, I view this work, and story-world as a bravely political and original portrait of geo-politics that is rarely, if ever, foregrounded in mainstream fictional cinema post-911 heretofore (cf. Syrianna: of side note - Mark Cuban Exec. Prod in both these films ... most interesting, to say the least). <br /><br />Lastly, for those closely attached to the characters of Henry Fool, Simone, Fay and Henry this film is hilariously self-conscious and self-referential. That being said, the character of Fay Grimm starts off in the film, exactly where she was when Henry Fool ended, but by the end of the film ... Fay's knowledge and experience has total changed and expanded over the course of the narrative. What can be in store for the future of Fay and the Fool family ... ?? I can't wait for the third part in this story!

**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink–-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.

I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended.

This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.

The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after "Blow-Up", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.<br /><br />Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.<br /><br />The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the "rebel" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.<br /><br />Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.<br /><br />Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some "benefactor" but "destroying a genuine piece of American history". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.<br /><br />And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, "joined" in fantasy by the "flower" generation reflects the similar sequence in "Red Desert", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.<br /><br />The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.<br /><br />Antionioni's two "international" films (the British "Blow-Up" and the American "Zabriskie Point") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge.

This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking.

I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU.

This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.<br /><br />Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.<br /><br />Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.<br /><br />However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.

This is my first comment on IMDb website, and the reason I'm writing it is that we're talking about ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER! 'Ne goryuy!' will make you laugh and cry at the same time, you will fall in love (if you're not a fan yet!) with Georgian choir singing tradition, and possibly you will accept the hardships of your own existence and just feel good after watching it:) What I like a lot about this film is that actors in the non-leading roles create vivid and memorable characters and are just as interesting and important as the central character. The film is starring Vahtang Kikabidze (who is great), but you will remember every single face around him in the film. You will find yourself quoting their lines, that have become household names for so many Russian-speaking people. A film to live with. Simple, yet deep, you will want to watch it again and again.

This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.

This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.<br /><br />It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in "The Big Chill", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help.

They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.<br /><br />One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other "bank" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.<br /><br />Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.<br /><br />The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges.

1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever…). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)…The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker.

I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb.

After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! <br /><br />All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.<br /><br />Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.<br /><br />Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.<br /><br />Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.<br /><br />The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.

Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think "oh she's such i b*tch i love her" just "she's such a b*tch".This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.<br /><br />The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so "immoral" and "rude".I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that "I love her cause she's such a b*tch character" like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like "This show sucks" and "Why isn't this cancelled yet".I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy.

Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and – surprise – pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.<br /><br />Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like "Flavia, the Heretic" have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister!

This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.<br /><br />The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.<br /><br />The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.<br /><br />Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small.

This is a great movie! Most of us have seen Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory is summarized by telling about a butterfly's wings, causing a tornado on the other side of the planet. Well, Bug is all about that (or at least something, don't worry this is no spoiler) I'm definitely not a religious type and don't believe in pre-destined stuff, fate, etc, but this movie surely makes you wonder if coincidence really exists...<br /><br />further more, the acting and camera are excellent too, another prove that it's still possible to make a good movie without a zillion bucks

Farrah Fawcett gives the best performance by an actress on film in this gritty real life attempted rape thriller where she turns the tables & gives James Russo a taste of his own medicine. A must see for any movie fan.

This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)<br /><br />The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...<br /><br />I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.<br /><br />It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.<br /><br />See it and laugh!

OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again.

Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much.

"Someones at the Door". OHHH, How I miss this show so bad.. but we are lucky to now have "Invasion". Thank You, Shawn Cassidy. American Gothic, had it all.If I had to pick one thing that I liked best about the show, it has to be its "not predictable plot-lines". Favorite actor was Lucas Black.. I adore that southern accent. I bought the DVD asap, and my kids are fans too. There is some hot n steamy scenes. Some Devilish ones too. So, if kiddos will be watching you may want to edit(fastforward/skip). It has humour, on a Joss Wheedon level, which so many shows lack. Adult wit and adult situation, that are handled with finese. The DVD has some extras, but I wish it has many more. If you want to get thrilled and enjoy a great show, come watch "American Gothic"!

Going for something far away from the deliberately gross stuff that he usually makes, John Waters (happy birthday, John!) made this parody of the celebrity/art world. Edward Furlong plays the title character, a working-class teenager in Baltimore who loves to photograph things. When a New York agent (Lili Taylor) discovers his work, she offers him his big break, which he accepts. But once he hits it big, he has to reconsider everything.<br /><br />Basically, "Pecker" looks at how he loses his friends and his normal life once he becomes a celebrity. The sort of thing that we might expect, sure, but with Waters directing, there's always a few things to shock us (you'll know them when you see them). I certainly recommend it. Also starring Christina Ricci, Mink Stole and Patty Hearst.

Ya I rented it, so shoot me!<br /><br />A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.

All of you who despaired looking at the emptiness and weaknesses of Disney Studios' last productions, here comes something that should heal your wounds... Once and for all, A Bug's life brings the proof that purely synthetic pictures conducting a good scenario provides more interest than fake "hand-made-old-Disneys-like" drawings (see the Lion King, Pocahontas, and all the latest productions where you sadly regret that Bambi's magical background and atmosphere are gone forever).<br /><br />A bug's life (1001 Pattes for my fellow french cinemaniaks !) succeeds in avoiding all the imperfections that make you awaken in the middle of the movie and say "Hey, this thing is computer generated !". No weak parts, a tremendous effort showing its efficiency in the backgrounds and the general look of the sets, an astonishing 3D bird (close to perfection in its imitation of reality)... and that's only to mention the technical aspects.<br /><br />The scenario, my friends, the real backbone of a motion picture, has some thickness ! Curiously, and obviously thanks to Lasseter's team, there is practically no musical sequence in A bug's life. Which means the story is long and rich enough to free itself from these 3 or 4 minutes that some kids appreciate, but most others dislike (same thing for the parents or the anime fans, like me). This movie reminded me of a really old movie featuring Steve Martin and Chevy Chase : the 3 Amigos ; it had basically the same background story (a whole mexican village living in the fear of a few bad guys hires gunmen (who finally turn to be actors) to protect them, etc...). Simple, but efficient, and brilliantly adapted to a colony of frightened ants facing the wrath of vicious insects.<br /><br />Since Microcosmos, many movies tell tales of insects, their lives, fears and hopes, but I do think that A bug's life is the funniest and best directed of all. The humanisation process has been perfectly well achieved... And the whole audience was captivated by Flik's (aka Tilt in France) adventures.<br /><br />A big thank you for Lasseter's team, especially for the last 30 seconds... it's so strange and great at the same time to see a whole theater caught in laughter while the bugs/actors forget their lines or hit the camera...<br /><br />And finally, especially for those of you who have seen the french version, other congratulations go to the dubbing actors who made a great synchro work on this movie. A bug's life is a really good piece of entertainment, and I think it will soon become part of my collection of videos (a privilege granted to extremely few movies, and that's not a problem of storage room :). Go and see it, that's an order.

For those of you who are not aware with the theme that Kusturica continues to explore intermittently in his films--the Western assault on traditional Serbian values--it will be impossible for you to understand his narratives. This continuous theme, expressed through fantasy and outrageous comedy as its vehicle, is one that Kusturica has elected to mandate. Since his fantastic work and Magnum Opus 'Underground', Kusturica's films' 'Black Cat White Cat', 'Life is a Miracle', and recently with 'Promise Me This', his slapstick, carnivalistic style underscores the 'westernization' of Balkan culture, its ambivalent arrival and assault on the traditional idiom. In the case of 'Promise Me This', the paradoxical world of city (urban space) and village (traditional idiom) space are contrasted. The world of the city reflects western attributes that have ensconced the spatial and temporal setting; organized crime, sexual exploitation, a ruptured sense of identity and vehement disregard for traditional values--as expressed toward the young kid--villager. The end of the film further exemplifies this notion as we observe a funeral mass and wedding on a one-way dirt road. They are on a collision coarse; appropriately, the wedding, which represents the lifeline and pulse of the village, i.e. traditional values, are about to collide with the funeral mourners, exemplifying the death of tradition within this context. Yet Kusturica brilliantly examines this theme through his own unique, stylistic singularity. With his outrageous and flamboyant style serving as a vehicle in its portrayal.

I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.<br /><br />though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!

One wonders how the script came to be written.<br /><br />Wayne and the other performers do an OK job but as it is neither comedy, romantic thriller or anything else it is all rather disappointing.<br /><br />One feels as if one of the threads had been pursued it could have been something worthwhile. It is nonetheless interesting to see a real turkey of a story made just before the USA became directly involved with the war. I wonder if the surrounding politics had something to do with trying to make a movie for all tastes but ending up with something that pleases no one.<br /><br />Nonetheless it has historical value.

During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan

I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).<br /><br />I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.<br /><br />The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.<br /><br />My Vote 4/10.

This one is bad. A really bad and boring crime movie that has nothing out of the ordinary in it. A series of crimes, the killer that you do not see throughout the whole movie, the classic investigations. And also the classic tale about a cop who figures out what's going on and isn't believed by anyone, so he has to fight by himself to reveal the truth. Not too much in this one. Vote: 4 out of 10.

Not very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.

I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.<br /><br />It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.<br /><br />I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.

Far from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.<br /><br />Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.<br /><br />One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.<br /><br />The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number.

The idea's which are shown in this film are with a lot of care and detail and depict what a lot of people from around the world think of the American Policies, not neccessarily the United States itself. It shows what most of the people around the world think about America and what the Americans dont know about themselves. 11 directors showing 11 amazing minutes each of something which will give US viewers a lot to think about when they go home after watching the movie.

Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.<br /><br />The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.<br /><br />This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.

'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.

This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing "partner", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little "Mary" of the early "Little Rascals" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram "B's" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of "nerve tonic", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little "B", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman.

I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is expertly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is excellent. Israeli film has definitely come of age and is now fully competitive with other foreign films, though few have found a large audience in the U.S.

I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.

I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.<br /><br />Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.<br /><br />I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.<br /><br />And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.<br /><br />I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.<br /><br />There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.

A few years ago, a friend got from one of his other friends a video with the Michael Mann film 'Heat' on it. After we finished that movie, and were about to stand up, we saw that there is another film just after, tough on the cassette's envelope the owner didn't write it up. Yet we were all glued back to our seats by its distinct opening, which lacked credits.<br /><br />Some two hours later, I just sat there wondering: how could I not have heard of this masterpiece before?...<br /><br />This film was Europa. Lars von Trier woke film noir from the dead, deconstructed reality with intentionally obvious sets, yet often there was haunting similarity with post-war German photographs I saw. And then the tricky cuts!<br /><br />The story itself is a hard-to-take moral odyssey that has no happy end. A young American pacifist of German descent comes to post-war Germany, intent on doing some good to pay for the bombs his countrymen dropped. But he mostly meets distrust and self-destructive defiance. He hires with Zentropa, a dining-and-sleeping-car company (modeled on Mitropa), whose owner is one of the Nazi collaborators the Occupiers whitewash. Our hero falls in love with his daughter - who later turns out to be a member of the Werewolf, Nazi post-war terrorists. When he doesn't understand the world (or just Europeans) anymore, in his rage he blows up a railroad bridge under a train which he just saved.<br /><br />As a final note, for historical correctness: in the real world, the Werewolf were nowhere as important as the film implies, they were mostly a final Nazi propaganda coup. After an SS unit assassinated the major of Allied-occupied Aachen, two months before the capitulation, the Nazis announced the creation of whole legions of saboteurs and terrorists who will be ready to fight behind the lines, the Werewolf. But only a few hundred of mostly Hitler Youth received some training, and while two or three times some were deployed to murder suspected communists or forced-labourer foreigners in Bavarian villages to imprint lasting fear on inhabitants, with Hitler's death and the war's end it all fell apart.<br /><br />However, the Werewolf propaganda had a profound effect on the occupiers. They feared the Werewolf everywhere, suspected it behind any serious accident - but without exception another cause was found later (ignored by some recent pseudo-historians). For example, when a gas main exploded in the police HQ of bombed-out Bremen, or when the Soviet military commander died in a motorbike accident in Berlin. The effect was strongest on the Soviets, who arrested tens of thousands (in large part children!) 'preemptively' on suspicion of being Werewolf, and closed them off in prison camps where a lot of them died.

2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! <br /><br />The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: <br /><br />1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) <br /><br />2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.<br /><br />I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.<br /><br />Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

i love this film. the songs and story lines are great fun. and the song "saying goodbye" always moves me. what a brilliant thing to do to bring puppets to life, in a way that you actually care about these things made of cloth and fabric and whatever. great voices and great talent. why were all the other muppet films that came after this one so much less interesting, moving and funny? is it that mr. henson is just so very missed?

The Night Listener held my attention, with Robin Williams shining as a New York City radio host who becomes enamored with his friendship with a 14 year old boy (Rory Culkin) who is very ill. Williams has never met the boy in person, as they have only been in contact by talking on the telephone. However, Williams' ex-boyfriend (nice job from Bobby Cannavale) raises doubt about the boy, which prompts Williams to arrange a meeting with him in person. What follows makes a permanent impact on Williams in a way he does not expect. I will leave it at that. Toni Collette also stars.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film, with Toni Collette giving a memorable portrayal of Culkin's adoptive mother. Sandra Oh also starred as Williams' friend. The Night Listener is inspired by actual events, and it has a somber, almost creepy silence throughout. At times it is predictable, no thanks to some of the reviews I read before seeing the movie and just due to logic, but I liked it anyway. I enjoy Williams in roles like this, more so than his comedic characters so that was an added bonus for me. Recommended. 8/10

When you are in a gloomy or depressed mood, go watch this film. It shows a lot of beauty and joy in a very simple everyday setting, and it is very encouraging, in particular from a feminist and a humanist perspective.<br /><br />When you know both the Turkish language and either the Danish or the German language, go watch the film in any case. Half of the dialog is Danish in the original, synchronized to German in the translated version, the other half Turkish, subtitled in Danish or German, respectively. When i watched it in Mannheim, Germany, the reaction of the Turkish-speaking audience proved that there must be a lot of humor in the Turkish dialog, which, deplorably, mostly escaped me, being only imperfectly rendered in the subtitles. Still, the film is interesting even if you lack knowledge of the Turkish.<br /><br />Esthetically, the movie is playing a lot on the theme of speed and slowness. On first sight, there is lots of corporeal movement fast as lightning, making it a quick, an agitated film. In particular, even though this is a Kung Fu movie, watch out for the running scenes, beautifully expressing a wealth of emotions. But there are quite a few very slow, emotionally intense scenes, too. And above all, the characters develop at a much slower pace than you would expect in a drama about the coming of age; still, there is some movement in the characters to: Closely watch the villain Omar, whose part and acting i liked very much.<br /><br />The contrast of speed and stillness nicely contributes to the depiction of human rage and dignity - shown at once, in the same characters, at the same time.

<br /><br /> I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie. <br /><br />The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie. <br /><br />The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end. <br /><br />A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off.

Excellent comedy starred by Dudley Moore supported by Liza Minnelli and good-speaking John Gielgud. Moore is Arthur, a man belonging to a multimillionaire family, who was near to get 750 million dollars provided that he marries to a lady (Susan) from another multimillionaire family. In principle, Arthur accepted the conditions, but he finally refused when he met nice and poor Linda Marolla (Liza Minneli). Arthur was just a parasite because he did not work, he only enjoyed himself drinking hard and having fun with prostitutes. After several serious thoughts in his life and for the first time, Arthur decided not to marry Susan only few minutes before their wedding. The end was happy for Linda and Arthur although the latter knew that his life will change in the coming future. This comedy is a good lesson for life for anyone. Rich people are not usually happy with their ways of life.

This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.<br /><br />Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie

After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10

I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.<br /><br />Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.<br /><br />However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.<br /><br />The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.<br /><br />Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.<br /><br />Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.

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.

The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.