text,label
"I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.",0
"I rented Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through. The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the best!   Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+",1
"First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.  The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.  Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.  I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.",0
"I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book ""Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds"". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!",1
"This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.  Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself!   What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.",1
"I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling ""Carrie"" or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.",0
"This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.",0
I just watched it for the second time today and I must say with all my heart it is about damn time they made a movie about us as people not as spiritual beings. Such a waste of human life as this story was maybe some good will come out of it. And Eric is hotter than ever. To often in the movies First Nations people are seen as other than everyday people. We are always portrayed as chiefs or medicine people. Hey we are just like everyone else. And this movie showed just that. We hurt when an injustice is done and we can win in quest for justice. It is really to bad that the big movie companies cant see that. I cant wait till this comes out on DVD. Thanks to those who chose to show this story as it really was.,1
"I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!",0
"I usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.",0
"This was very funny, even if it fell apart a little at the end. Does not go overboard with homage after to Hitchcock - Owen (Danny DeVito) was lucky he had ""Strangers on A Train"" playing at the local cinema, so the movie flat out tells you that that was the inspiration.   DeVito is very funny but also a little sad. He has no friends and all he wants to do is write and have someone like his writing. His teacher, Billy Crystal, is going through some serious writers block of his own and his wife has stolen his book and made it her own success, which also has him frustrated a great deal.  Best parts are the book proposal by Mr. Pinsky (""One Hundred Girls I'd Like to Pork"") and all scenes with Anne Ramsey, who is so horrible that even Mother Theresa would have wanted to kill her, too!",1
"SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw ""the outpost"" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the ""monster"" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And  -GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.  Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.  OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)",0
"Some folkie friends recommended this, but as a film it's really lacking in originality. I found the characters to be unflattering stereotypes, and the plot is predictable almost from the beginning. However, if you like traditional English/Appalachian ballads, it will keep your interest long enough to hear the next one. I've also read that the soundtrack is nothing like the music in the movie, with professional musicians filling in for the actors.",0
"From 1950 comes a neat thriller about a couple smuggling diamonds from abroad and also the contagious disease smallpox. Evelyn Keyes pulls out all stops as the essential victim of this film-noir. Once back in the United States she is not aware that she could be spreading the disease on everyone and everything she comes in contact with. Eventually she is pursued and must be stopped before an epidemic occurs. Other than Keyes striking performance there is good support from villainous Charles Korvin, William Bishop, Dorothy Malone, Lola Albright and Whit Bissell. The finale is a humdinger with Miss Keyes on the ledge of a building with spotlights and hundreds of spectators below. A good B flick!",1
"I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy.   I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character.   In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.",0
"The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!",1
"Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.  Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.  The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.  Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.",1
"OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to.",1
"Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!   We've now been subjected to ""Eastenders"" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.  The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, ""dead from the neck up"" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.",0
"Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.  When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.  While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.  Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.",0
"Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, ""Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon""?  I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.  ""Hero"" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??  No, thanks.  But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!  Viva",0
"Is it just me or are most of the actors in this adaptation miscast age-wise?   Jemma Redgrave, although a superior actress, seems as if she should be joining her children instead of nodding off on the couch. (I would have loved to see Brenda Blethlyn in the part, her connection to the latest Pride and Prejudice notwithstanding.)  Blake Ritson and Rory Kinnear were the only two whom I felt lived up to their characters in spirit and performance. Every else looked confused or out of place.   Luckily, I'm not very familiar with Dr. Who (I've only seen a few episodes so far) or it would have definitely soured this further.   Too bad Mansfield Park has not yet seen its due on screen (either large or small). This novel requires the talent of a Robert Altman to balance all the complexities of the characters successfully.",0
"Plot:  - A Chair from EBay  - Random people  - Random people talk ("" Dude, it's right. "" ""I'm feeling it."" ""Lets get married now!"")  - If you are a ""hippie"" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)  This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!",0
"I deliberately did not read any reviews of this movie on IMDb before I watched it because I really wanted to see it and make up my own mind. I have been a big fan of QT in the past, I think we can all agree he has made some great movies, but lately he seems to have been overcome by his own mystique and disappeared up his own fundament. This ""movie"" proves that. It consists of few scenes of the Basterds at work. It consists instead mostly of long, tedious, boring stretches of conversation between people that, after a while, you realise you just do not give a stuff about. It's longwinded and lacks any of the great sparkling dialogue that QT has been responsible for in the past. The entire movie is anticlimactic. There is no tension - what is going to happen in every scene is telegraphed so clearly in advance that by the time it happens you just don't care. Honestly folks, don't believe the hype. This is a very boring movie and you will be missing nothing if you don't see it.",0
"Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.  And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's ""rubbish bin for totally useless things"". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.  CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the ""intentionally cheesy film-maker"" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of ""anti-artist"". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.  Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With ""Dancer In The Dark""? Can that bomb actually be topped?",0
"Uzumaki, is a visually stunning Film, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to argue that. But, unfortunately, the story somewhat falls flat.  The film nevertheless is very entertaining. It uses it's wild style to tell a somewhat non-existant story. The film almost works, just based on it's characters and style, but In my opinion, leaves something to be desired.",1
"Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all.   Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on.   Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.  The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.  I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.",0
"Please -- if you haven't attempted to sit through this garbage and are considering viewing this flick/mini-series -- do yourself a favor and find anything else to do. Floss your teeth, start learning to play the cello, beat your dog -- anything you choose will be time better spent than watching this junk. This is not a bad movie that you can get a few chuckles out of -- it simply sucks in every way possible. Just boring from beginning to end.  And for those animal lovers out there that feel my comment above is insensitive -- if your dog could speak, he or she would beg for a beating rather than suffer through watching this mess.",0
"The first Disney animated film without the strong involvement of Disney himself, this film suffers from the fact that the story is not particularly original or interesting (this is, I believe, the only animated Disney film since the 1940's which is NOT based on an earlier book or other work, but is rather an original story). As others have noted, the plot is essentially a cross between the romance in Lady and the Tramp and the kidnapping/journey home story in 101 Dalmatians.  But to overcome this flaw, the filmmakers have successfully used many of the better features of most of the Disney animated films of the previous 10-15 years: Phil Harris (from The Jungle Book) voicing one of the main characters, follows his duet with Louis Prima in the previous film with another here with Scatman Crothers. The quality visual look of this film is virtually carried over from ""Dalmatians"" (with some nice nods to French Impressionism, it appears), and the villain here (the butler) is strongly reminiscent of the henchmen in that film as well. (This is probably one of Disney's least memorable villains.) The main story goes back and forth between the cats, and the butler's ongoing difficulties with two rural hound dogs (with great voice work by Pat Buttram and George ""Goober"" Lindsey""). The various animal characters are similarly familiar to those who have seen ""Tramp"" and ""Dalmatians."" The cats' owner, while bearing a striking visual resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Sleeping Beauty, bears none of that character's nasty traits and comes across as very warm and generous.  The real strength of the film is the voice work; after first going toward the use of mostly familiar actors in The Jungle Book, the tactic is continued strongly here with Disney veterans Harris and Sterling Holloway from The Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor (who would do a very similar character in the later film The Rescuers), as well as Crothers and Nancy Kulp. All are excellent here, particularly Harris and Gabor in the leads. The character animation is as excellent as one would expect, showing a variety of emotions well.  Smaller children may be upset by a few brief episodes (an escape from the path of a speeding train, a near-drowning by one of the children), but these are not presented in a particularly frightening or dark manner and are over very quickly. Overall, there's very little of the type of more frightening scenes found in many other Disney classics.  One minor oddity is the way some visual aspects of 60's culture are depicted among the jazz-performing cats in supposedly 1910 Paris; one can't help but wonder why the story wasn't set solidly in the present, other than the great deal Paris had changed much of its appearance in the intervening time. It really would have made more sense that way.  The songs, while being pleasant and sometimes very enjoyably performed, are not particularly memorable. Nonetheless, the general energy applied here, the excellent voice work and fine animation all contribute to overcome the relatively few and minor weaknesses. Far from the greatness of classic ""10""s such as Pinocchio or Aladdin, and not quite up to the ""9""s one might give to Sleeping Beauty or 101 Dalmatians, this is probably a rather marginal 8 of 10; perhaps a 7.",1
"Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.  Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunately for this time around, the laughs don't deliver and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.  As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the ""pleasure"" of adding it.  The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.  Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.  Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunately for this fan...I won't.",0
"Now, the sci-fi channel original company has made some pretty crappy films (House of the dead 2, All souls day, etc.) but when you leave the job entirely to horror master actor/writer and now director, Bruce Campbell, you get one of the best damn made for TV independent horror films ever made! I normally hate these movies, in my previous review, House of the dead 2, I could not believe how horrible the film was! But somehow I took a liking for this film, a very good liking for this film. The violence is good and so is the black comedy in the film and I recommend you get it, a true Bruce Campbell masterpiece! Well, since there is only a few more lines left I can say whatever I want about this movie: IJAJKASIF JHJDJ NXD FNEHSD FHNCFNFVHS DJKEALJWSNS.UHHD SISHSNHF AHCNAKDJH HNDCHJNDNH JACND HCHJNNHW JHJ NASHDNFHCKA FHNKHAD SAKASDADJ FJKDFA",1
"is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with ""bad habits"" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.",1
"Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award.",1
"It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the ""thief"" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) ""Less than Zero"". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.",0
"Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress..... But this movie was so horrible, I couldn't help but chuckle throughout the movie in disbelief that I was actually watching something so crappy. Ha ha. The audio editing is horrible, They try too hard to come up with creative camera angles. Because they're just weird and stupid. The script sucked. Acting was horrible, storyline not very good. Very unrealistic, even for a movie. But it is a 20 year old movie..... so I'll give it a bonus point for that. And yeah, the music was terrible. But we all got to start somewhere. And submitting these things is such a hassle..... 10 line minimum... bother. Well now I know why I couldn't find this movie in the movie store.... I had to purchase it offline to see it... good thing it was only $.58 cents.... even though shipping was $2.59. Oh well.... I don't recommend anyone wasting their time and money seeing this film...",0
"The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition online that is at the website address Http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html that originally was trying to get this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations. Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling ""Power Extreme!""",1
"Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie ""Dead Line"". This is the US video title for ""Interferencia"". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of ""B"" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on ""The Asylum"" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says""..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is ""The screams you will hear are real"". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.",0
"This has to be one of the, if not the worst movies I have ever seen. After watching this piece of sh*t I felt as though I should write to Madonna and demand compensation for my time, but now I feel that I should write Madonna and demand a great 80s album (considering she can't record a good album to save her life anymore) in return for this disaster.   On to the movie itself, which can be summed up like this:  It consists Madonna jumping around acting like a spoiled teenager who lost her way. She is trying to impress this absolute douche of an actor who plays ""the lawyer' in the movie. But, the best was the ending. I was staring with my jaw on the ground into the television as the credits rolled by thinking to my self, ""That's it? That's the ending? What a piece of sh*t!"". If Madonna wasn't a pop icon at the time of this film, this movie would have single handedly destroyed her career. And the funniest thing of the whole situation was that I just watched the damn movie to see where they placed the song ""Who's That Girl"". Well, guess where they placed it?...................................at the end!",0
"What can I say about this film other than the narrative is one of the most exciting in film history...and based on a true story! Being old enough to remember the Berlin Wall when it was still used to contain a country, this film gives you a dark insight into the grim incarceration of East Berliners, and their desperate attempts to escape, no matter what the cost. The film follows the lives of two families , who decide to escape using a hot-air balloon manufactured by themselves. Forever fearing arrest by the authorities, under scrutiny by neighbours, they have to calculate a plan to reach the other side of the wall. A tense & thrilling story of courage and determination which truly pays homage to all those who succeeded and failed the treacherous journey to West Berlin and freedom.",1
"This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.  Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.  Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a ""harpy;"" the rug salesman spouse (Pär Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric Bäckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.  Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.  Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.  But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.  Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.  An Italian reviewer called this ""a small, great film,"" and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes ""Un Certain Regard"" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them ""the best commercials in the world."" It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.  ""Schadenfreude"" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us.",1
"This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a ""serious"" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1/2)",0
"I once saw a bit of this film, and was interested to see the full thing just to see why the critics give it two stars, the result being that I agree. Basically the film begins with Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) telling all his Muppet chums that they have lost everything, and he ends sitting depressed (and possibly thinking about suicide) on the bench. Meanwhile, in another world (Heaven) angel Daniel (David Arquette, who had already been in Muppets from Space) visits the 'Boss' (Whoopi Goldberg, another reason I wanted to see the film) to show that Kermit really needs help. In the flashbacks, it shows Kermit, Miss Piggy (Eric Jacobson, not the original and better Frank Oz), Gonzo (Dave Goelz), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Pepe the Prawn (Bill Barretta) and all the other Muppets have prepared a stage show for many people to see in the Christmas holiday, and it all seems to be going well. But the really mean Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) is determined to either shut the show or the theatre down, and Kermit is doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Kermit fails the last time, and Bitterman tells him that they are finished, and she can officially take the theatre. This is where Daniel is sent as Kermit's guardian angel to try and help him, but Kermit is not in the mood, and eventually ends up saying ""I wish I was never born"". Obviously, you can recognise the spoof of It's a Wonderful Life, with Kermit as the George Bailey, and Cusack as the Mr. Potter, and in the end, obviously Kermit realises how much he means to everyone, and goes back to find the theatre saved as historical landmark. Also starring Whitmire as Rizzo the Rat and Beaker; Goelz as Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Waldorf; Barretta as Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the Dog and Swedish Chef; Jacobson as Animal and Yoda (the only character who sounds similar to Oz's version), William H. Macy as Glenn, Matthew Lillard as Luc Fromage, Carson Daly, Molly Shannon; Scrubs' Zach Braff, Sarah Chalke, Neil Flynn, John C. McGinley and Judy Reyes, Mel Brooks as Joe Snow; Brian Henson as Scooter and Janice; Jerry Nelson as Robin the Frog, Statler, Pops and Floyd Pepper, and Kevin Clash as Sam the Eagle. The most memorable moment for me is the stage spoof of Moulin Rouge, besides that and the well known faces in it, not fantastic. It was nominated the Emmy for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for the song ""Everyone Matters"". The Muppets were number 47 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Adequate!",0
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.  Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945  When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.  Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of ""them."" Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered.   While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this ""oversight"" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand.   Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about ""Fargo"") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.  Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of ""a mistake"" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka ""Meatloaf"") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.  The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.  ""Focus'"" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses.",1
"I saw this film at the 3rd Adelaide International Film Festival at the Palace cinemas, and was totally switched onto it in the opening five minutes. Thanks goodness for a film that ignores all the rubbish we often see in Australian films that seem to revolve around a)race b)gender and c) class, in favour of er...dare I say....jolly good cinema. The producer, a shy, slightly eccentric chap called Alex Frayne introduced his film, made with a bunch of his mates near the town he spent much of his childhood. Apparently he's spent much of the last year traveling the world with the film, mostly in Europe. The world the film creates is both brilliant and arty, not least because of strange and disconcerting editing style, the Gothic characters, and the surreal sense of time and place that draws viewers into its nightmarish realm.  The producer returned for the Q + A after-wards. Someone asked him what his inspiration was - he replied ""South Australia."" Hear hear! Another asked him what a 'day in the life of alex' entailed. He replied that he drives an old Ute, that he has breakfast at the same table at the same restaurant that he's jolly well eaten at for the past 8 years! and that he plays piano which helps him to think. He doesn't drink booze and plays cricket once a week. Then the Q and A session ended abruptly because of the next film screening - so my thoughts are that for the next festival, they need to extend the after film sessions.",1
"Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.  No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.",0
"Necessary Roughness (1991) was a bad comedy/ drama that tried to hard on every level to be a serious film about college football. A lot of current and former superstar athletes appeared in this production during one of the film's comedic highlights. Other than that it's a very mediocre movie. They should have just stuck to making a straight out comedy filled with no realism. Instead the film makers try to play both fields and they end up on the short end of the stick. When will somebody make a decent film about college football that's funny and realistic?  Not recommended, unless it's for free on t.v.",0
"I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.  I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look!",1
"Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!  The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song ""He's Moving On"" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect.",1
"Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36"" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.",0
"Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after ""well""? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where ""yahoo"" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)",1
"The word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.  As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.  The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them „stop it, please"" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.  The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing else.",0
"EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the ""real"" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked ""Simon Birch"" and ""The Mighty"", you'll love ""Radio"" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal!",1
"Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie ""The Mad Ghoul,"" ""The Mad Monster"" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as ""House of Frankenstein"" (1944) and ""Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein"" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's ""Teenage Monster""). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than ""The Mad Monster"" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!",0
"Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.  In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.  During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.  During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.  Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.  Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal.",0
"Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including ""Rear Window"", ""Dial M For Murder"", ""Vertigo"", and ""To Catch A Thief"", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, ""Yes, dear"", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.  There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder).   Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in ""To Catch A Thief""); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of ""Spellbound"", also).  All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films (""Vertigo"", ""Strangers on a Train""), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces.",1
"This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.",0
"Gerald McRaney,(Dave Morgan),""War Crimes"",'01 TV Series, was like a father to Tiffani Thiessen,(Jennifer Gallagher),""A Kiss Before Lying"",'03, who experience a very bad situation in her life and it caused Jennifer to be withdrawn with people and young men. Dave Morgan tries desperately to get her out of the house and manages to introduce Jennifer to Chris (Gallagher) who falls madly in love with her at their very first meeting. In almost one or two dates later, Chris asks Jennifer if she will marry him and she agrees. It is not very long after the Wedding that things start to happen, Chris is in the Navy and does not like working in submarines and things start happening to young gals in the neighborhood. This is a very excellent TV film and it sometimes makes you wonder if the guy or gal I want as a Soul Mate is the Perfect PERSON !",1
"This movie was awesome, if you want a movie with non-stop puns and laughter then this is right for you. This movie was great because it took the serious Robin Hood and made it something the whole family can enjoy and get a good laugh at. I first viewed this movie when i was around 10, and got most of it. This movie is also great because it makes fun of everything involved, ""By order of the kings financial secretary H and R Blockhead?""  Everyone needs a little Cary Elwes(Robin Hood)in life, whether or not its Liar Liar with the ""Claw"" or Saw.   This movie is worth watching",1
"Pepe Le Pew can either really creep you out or totally sweep you off your feet. Either way, you can't help feeling a little awe on beholding this classic WB character. This commentater personally believes that Pepe was the inspiration behind other would be animated casanovas today from Cartoon Network's ""Johnny Bravo"" to Disney's Lumiere from ""Beauty and the Beast"".   His unique brand of love making is to be wondered at in today's world where his antics would normally be slapped with a sexual harassment warrant and at least a 50m distance from all his victims.   In this particular cartoon, a world weary cat decides to do an ultimate makeover and earn some respect for a change for pretending to be a skunk. All goes well, until Pepe arrives and promptly pursues the unfortunate feline with his overwhelmingly enthusiastic love-making.  The groundwork for Pepe's many trademarks are laid in this cartoon. From his adorable ""frenchified"" love calls to that aggravatingly calm hop-chase of his.   This cartoon only goes to show that as far as the world of cartoon fantasy is concerned, the most ardent wooer can go the distance...and have his beloved ""pig-eon"" leaving dust trails behind them.",1
"Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of ""The Origin of Species"", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's ""Creation"" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.  I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which ""Creation"" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).  All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend ""Inherit the Wind"". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.",1
"Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!  In 1987, Disney, while still a ""low"" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called ""Not Quite Human,"" about a geeky teenager who, like in ""Inspector Gadget,"" looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like ""Tron"" and ""Honey, I Shrunk The Kids"" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!  My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)  ""Not Quite Human"" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again.   Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.  10/10",1
"Little Vera is the story of a Russian teenager, her family, and her attempts to find meaning and value in a life sliding increasingly into decay. In her search for meaning, she falls in love with a more intellectual and rebellious Sergei, whose hatred for her deeply flawed parents quickly spirals out of control.  Little Vera is shocking and disturbing in nearly every way. The drinking of the father, the enabling and lack of understanding of the mother, the casual lies and misdirection of the brother, and Vera herself forgiving them all their flaws are all shocking and slightly disturbing to watch. However, the raw honesty of the film somehow manages to become even more shocking than the plot or characters. Set in cramped spaces and vast urban decay, Little Vera presented a vastly different view of Soviet life than had ever been seen before. In fact, Little Vera is a portrait of the collapse of Soviet society painted in shades of pain, desperation, and rust. It is the implosion of a family set against the implosion of an entire social order.  Although painful and desperately unsatisfying, the film itself is definitely worth seeing, if only to understand the feelings and cultures still reshaping Russia today.",1
"Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.  The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.  So after a long day at work, stick ""Michael"" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :)",1
"I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story –though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale… is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.",1
"I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and ""The Leopard"" not; it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story. Like ""The Leopard,"" it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike. It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point -- Gustav surrounded by a visual din.  The way in which the object of Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him, just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem (there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much). Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms in is all.  The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene, which unlocks his repressed vanity.  It isn't totally successful -- the whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower, something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes -- touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses, or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9/10",1
"If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.",1
"Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good.   You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up.   This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?  This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!  The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller.   Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No",0
"Loved this movie!! Great acting by Carla Gugino. Interesting story about a kidnapping that goes horribly wrong (don't they all?). Some surprising twists and turns in the film and the plot was easy to follow without being so convoluted as to be totally incomprehensible. It was a totally unexpected delight. More ""Quentin-ish"" than most films try to be.",1
"George Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies ""The Philadelphia Story"" ""Adam's Rib"" ""Holiday"" Psycho melodramas ""Gaslight"" ""A Double Life"" a great semi western ""Heller in Pink Tights"" not to mention ""My Fair Lady"" or ""Travels with my Aunt"" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching ""Rich and Famous"" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with ""Apartment Zero"", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies.",1
"The Capture Of Bigfoot is one of the silliest and worst movies of all time. I love Sasquatch and Bigfoot movies but this one is just a sheer waste of one's time.Terrible, terrible, terrible!I watched this movie last night, and it was all I could do to finish watching.I understood that this weird crazy man wanted to capture Bigfoot,but that was the only thing that made sense in this movie.It did have some amusing parts though.There was this very cheesy and corny disco club with very bad disco dancing that seemed to go on for far too long in the movie.I think the director was trying to fill time.The worst thing was the way the Bigfoot looked.The obvious man in a suit looked like a pink faux fur Bigfoot.It was laughable.If you want to see a very bad Bigfoot movie, then I suggest that you purchase this movie.Personally, I wasted my time and my money on this one!",0
"I unwittingly walked into this ""trap"" of a movie.  If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.  It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.  It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.  Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.  This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the ""Gayness"" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.  I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as ""loud"" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.",0
"I love this movie! When I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid,it scared the hell out of me.Probably because mannequins give me the creeps too.Jocelyn Jones(Molly)is an excellent actress.She uses her facial expressions,especially her eyes,at playing terrified.Chuck Connors is great as Mr.Slausen.I was happy to see him play such a different roll.The other actors in this movie are great too! Tanya Roberts(Becky)and Robin Sherwood(Eileen) are great actresses and I hope to see them in future films,especially Jocelyn Jones!   So if you love scary movies but are tired of seeing the same old thing,check this movie out!",1
"Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.  It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly ""focuses"" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.  The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.  The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.  The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.  The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his ""time of need"" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.  Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.  Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!",0
"This film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.  I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!  Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.  Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his/her counterpart in the remake.  In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.  In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen ""presence."" Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.  Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.",0
"Nice description of the situation in the US, it explains different kinds of Islam, not just show terrorist and extremist. Islam can be other thing that killing, they show why some people become terrorist and how to be Muslim without being extremist. It is a great series that Muslims and no-Muslims should see. Now we hope that other series or films will be done to change the idea of all Muslims are terrorist and all Americans want to destroy Islam. It gave me the interest to discover what Islam is exactly and what the US and also European government do to help cohabitation between people of different religion.",1
"They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.  This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.  Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.  The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that ""retarded"" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.  Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls ""Lady"") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called ""House of D"" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.  I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.  Critics tore ""House of D"" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.",0
"I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).  Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but ""Jewish-looking"" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.  Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.  The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.  Wow.",1
"This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The ""science"" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from ""some god-forsaken anti-matter universe"", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)",0
"I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. ""Shut up, Robert!"" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. ""Rabbit"". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. ""Crime Master Gogo"". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. ""Relax. PLEASE relax."" I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman ""Muscles"" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.",1
"Be warned, the next time you see ""Richard Kelly"" involved in any production, run away. Fast.  Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, ""Southland Tales"", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In ""The Box"", not much has changed.  I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard ""Twilight Zone"" Matheson's old short stories.  Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:   Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.   Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct ""experiments"" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.  Kelly dances around his film's ""message"", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, ""What if I was the person who dies?"". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???  If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be ""easier"" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.  The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.  It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like ""Saw"" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.  By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.",0
"You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror!",0
"In the ever growing film genre of comic book adaptations, Blade is by far one of the best realised, and most faithful (overall) to the source material.... given that the character has almost 30 years of history in the comics since his debut as a back up figure in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula, the writer took almost ALL of the characters and plot elements from the comic's history. While changes were inevitably made, the finer points of the film steamroll right over any criticisms. Don't let any of you friends tell you different: Blade is one fine film. If it feels too ""comic booky"" for you Stanley Kubrick snobs out there, it's because it's supposed to. Deal with it, but don't dis it for it.",1
"A train holding union soldiers is transporting $300,000 of gold, along with a banker Clayton, who's there to see it reaches its destination, but it's suddenly robbed by the bandit Monetero. However Bahunda nicks off with the gold and hides it, but when Monetero tries to get it out of him, he's killed by soldiers. The only clue is that of a medallion, but Monetero is captured and soon would be executed. A stranger dressed up as a priest comes by (who after the bounty of Monetero) and offers to save his life for half of the gold. In exchange Monetero gives him half of the medallion, but Clayton notices it and discovers something is up. Soon all three are crossing each other for the gold, but also the bank's insurance company and Monetero's gang are watching on, waiting for their chance to pounce.  Just watching the opening sequence you'll know you're in for a spaghetti western with a tongue-in-cheek style and a reliance of sprinkling many references (some nicely realised) from other films (largely the Dollar trilogy) of its sub-genre. Director Enzo Castellari's sprightly direction is sprawling and mostly lightweight, but there's potential in many of his grand, showy set pieces and smooth rhythmic pace. Largely there's a lot of tussles, fist-fights (and plenty of acrobatic stunts) taking place, compared with all-out vicious shootouts. However most of these stunts are very well done, and very enjoyable and when the guns are blazing there's energy to burn. The traditional story sticks close to conventional details, but since there's a lot of conniving and outfoxing going on, the spontaneous nature makes sure you're never quite certain how it's eventually going to play out between the three. This leads up to many effective suspenseful moments, clever twists, and plenty of wink, wink. The humour within the starch script is pretty sly. Worked in favourably amongst the light and zesty style, is Giovanni Bergamini's dynamically taut framing and Francesco De Masi's impulsively rousing music score. The performances are extremely well tailored and form a striking rapport. George Hilton's wry and scuffed turn is solid as the ambiguous stranger. Gilbert Roland brings class and intelligence to his formidable Mexican bandit Monetero. Edd Byrnes gives a poised performance as Clayton, that holds up well. Kareen O'Hara doesn't get much to do, but is a worthy looker. Gerard Herter, Pedro Sanchez and Ivano Staccioli provide able support.  A fun and worthy spaghetti parody/homage that throws one curve-ball after another and many fruitful down 'n' dirty antics.",1
"Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.   Arguably one of the pioneering ""suspense thrillers"", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.  But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of ""swapping murders"" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of ""darkness in humanity's heart"", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.   The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the ""Id"", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.   Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply ""the director's daughter"" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.   All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!   -9/10",1
This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film.,1
"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like ""PITCH BLACK"" ""THE THING"" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.",0
"The film ""Chaos"" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie ""Chaos""? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a ""theme"" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie ""Choas"" resembles the Canadian effort ""Cube,"" in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in ""Cube"" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in ""Chaos"": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of ""Chaos"" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in ""Chaos"" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.",0
"Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, ""Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys."" Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion.",1
"King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm) of Romania is a vampire, but a vampire of light who wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with mankind. But his son, Radu (Anders Hove), is a cruel creature to his very heart (which is pretty obvious as soon as you see him). Three female students have come to study local folklore, but find themselves drawn into the vampires legends at just the wrong time: Vladislav has been killed.  Who can say anything bad about a film featuring a cameo from Angus Scrimm? I can't. I mean, I had some low expectations after seeing other Full Moon pictures (""Puppet Master"" in particular, and ""Demonic Toys""). But despite the really bad animated effects of the demons, this film was actually really well done and very fun to watch. Plenty of blood, a good plot and backstory (the Bloodstone story was surprisingly refreshing) and even some new angles on the vampire mythos, which you'd think would be dead by now. (Maybe I'm wrong, but this is probably the first film to feature rosary beads being fired from a gun.) Aside from vampires and blood, you get a share of nudity (gratuitous, but welcome) and I had to notice the excellent score from the composers (not sure who deserves credit, but those involved include Stuart Brotman, Richard Kosinski, William Levine, Michael Portis and John Zeretzka). This is Horror 101 all the way. Heck, you even get two sequels, which is the sign of a true horror film. (Of course, some bad films get sequels, too -- did I mention ""Puppet Master""?) The Romanian theme was well-done, and the film even seems to have been made by Romanians if I am guessing their name origins correctly. And the score -- the music -- really stood out for me as a nice change of pace, very mood-setting. I like Richard Band, but I'm glad another composer was given a shot because he nailed the atmosphere on the head. If you like vampire films and want a slight variation (one of the Eastern European variety), this is worth seeing.",1
"Its a spoof, its an intelligent comedy, it has some a pathetic action and choreography (and mind it, it is intentional), good hummable songs, good performances by the entire cast, brilliant by Amir, Salman and Paresh and over all an script which is so rare in Indian cinema that too in comedy (watch David Dhawan, Harmesh Malhotra etc). Story is of two wastrels whose only aim is to get rich and famous by any which ways. They come across one such way when they find out that a rich NRI is coming India to get married. Rest of the story is about oneupmanship and how these wastrels try to out wit each other. Entire cast is perfectly cast right from Deven Verma till Viju Khote. Songs are rightly placed and are funny. Surprise package is Salman who acts with perfect timing and this particular act gave him his style of comedy.  All an all a fum film which you should not ignore if you like and watch Indian Cinema.",1
"'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships. We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone.",1
"I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.",0
"Brown returned to his role from the year before (in ""Slaughter"") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role.",1
"I watched this movie and all I can say is this...I am not a film student, nor am I some artsy intellect who tries to look for a deeper meaning into everything that I don't understand. However, IF I were to do that with this film, my thoughts would be...  Yep! He's on drugs and I can picture it now...he was tripping one night and sat around with his buddies laughing and saying stuff like, hey...wouldn't it be funny if nuns really could fly? Like what if one just fell out of a plane and free fell for a while, bounced to the ground and got up and walked away? *cackles* or if buckwheat gave the pope a bath? oh my god, I'm cracking up just thinking about it! Dude! We gotta make a movie about it! And then he says to his friend as he's laughing...Oh and wouldn't it be hilarious if people loved it and called me a genius for it? So to me, this is what happens when some guy does one too many drugs and writes a script and produces a movie. Should I have been doing LSD to understand what this guy was thinking so I could have had a laugh too? Because I have to tell you, I wasn't laughing. I was yawning and checking the time.  I think everyone who is trying their hardest to find a deeper meaning is hysterical. I had never heard of this director until I came to read the reviews, which I did because I was mad that I lost that last 2 hrs, or how ever long it was, (it felt like 12 hrs of my life) and I can't ever get it back, anyway...I have read that this guy is a heroine addict and he wanted to die for art?? what the heck is that? So my point is sort of proved. This guy is not all there, he's a drug addict, and his movie is evidence of such...So please quit trying to find a deeper meaning to it. If one really wants to understand everything in this movie, go drop some LSD and sit back and relax, then it might actually make sense.  It reminded me of the time I watched Gus Van Sant's Last Days, another movie I was mad about watching. I cannot help but wonder what the ratings would be for that movie, if the same people reviewed it who reviewed this one. It seems like, if the movie's director is totally off his rocker, or if it's a french movie with sex and subtitles, or if it's a cartoon, it is going to get great reviews, hands down, anything else is boring and has already been done. BLAH, bring on the boring please!",0
"I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just ""fall in love"" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you.",1
"Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? ""Who?"" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius!",1
"Heh...I'm surprised this movie still exists in any form, let alone it being available for rent!   This flick is one of the many bad slasher flicks that exist only for the T&A and the cheap laughs. The story line crosses a bit of ""Texas Chainsaw massacre"" with a screwy mamma-centred back story reminiscent of ""Psycho"", and a bit of the good old women-in-chains, tough-as-nail-ex-con broads tossed in for good measure - in other words, complete unoriginality wrapped up in half naked women spiced with a dash of utter idiocy! Looking on as the director attempts to make the marsh land of Quebec pass off as Southern U.S. bayou land is sad, I tell ya!   Funny thing for me is, I was actually at the premier of this flick as, at the time, I was pals with Ratchford, the film's ""star"". It was painful to watch on as Jeremy sank into his seat whilst the flick unfolded its mangled wings.  I'm happy to see that Ratchford, after this sham of a first flick, has grown into one hell of an actor. He can be seen regularly on the Canadian cop drama ""Blue Murder"", has appeared on ""CSI"", not to mention his role in the classic Clint Eastwood film ""Unforgiven"" - we forgive ya, Jeremy! It was a rocky start, but you done good, man!   ~T.Paul",0
"I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.  Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several ""student films,"" I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed.   All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.  2/10",0
"This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard.",1
"Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.  Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his ""biggest"" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.",1
"I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.",0
"This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than ""Honey I Shrunk The Audience"" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D ""Movie Experience"" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike ""Honey..."" and has more effects than the spectacular ""MuppetVision""",1
"After 10 years, it is finally save to say that our Belgian Action Star is back again. I personally found this one to be even better than Wake Of Death, which makes it his best movie in... 10 years!! Okay, it is not like his highlight years as Timecop, Universal Soldier, Sudden Death or even his best effort to date: Hard Target (one of the best action movies ever made by one of the best action directors John Woo.) The Action is good, the story is exciting, the dialogue is quite funny, this one is better than expected.The bad guys are awesome like in Hard Target, and the fight scenes are ""old school"". Real fans know what to expect. I must say, I gave up on him, but Van Damme is finally back. More Please....",1
"I was on a British Airways flight from London to New York when I saw this movie. I wish I could have fallen asleep. The story line was very thin and the editing crew did their best to stretch it out as long as they did.  Gary, played by Andy Garcia, was such an unlikable character that I found it hard to be supportive of him. Andy's acting ability is good but not good enough to make up for the poor writing in this movie.  Andie MacDowell did a fine job with her portrayal of Linda, Gary's romantic interest. I can not say anything bad about Andie, I always enjoy her acting. The problem here is that the romance between Andy and Andie is so far fetched and unbelievable. The two do not make a good pair on the big screen.  The end of the movie was almost as much of a let down as the movie itself. A nod from the Pope and all is forgiven, come on. The event that allows this movie to have a some what happy ending and that the writers would expect us to accept it is pathetic. Gary does not change and only by the death of a dear friend does his situation get better.  There are tons of great movies that should be seen before this one. Don't waste your time.",0
"This is a cherished movie from my childhood!! I can still hum the theme song at the drop of a hat!! I remember getting to stay up late to watch this movie with my father, usually two to three times a year. We always referred to it as ""Giant Robot"". Although the effects in this movie are crude compared to today's standards, they were perfect for this movie's genre. I am also a BIG fan of the Japanese ""Monster"" movies, so this movie fell right in to place with the others. It's been years since I've seen this movie & would love to get my hands on a copy of it to share with my 8 year old daughter.",1
"First and foremost this movie has the stupidest plot of any movie I have ever seen, and unfortunately I had to see this one. I was flipping through channels one day and stumbled upon this lousy excuse for a movie, and it confirmed what I have been saying for a long time. Carrot Top is not an actor, and IS NOT funny in the slightest sense. He acts like he's a great comedian and thinks he commands the audiences attention. Frankly he has the acting ability of a 10 year old class clown, scratch that less than a 10 year old's ability to compare them to Carrot Top would be a grave insult upon their good name. This movie tries to be funny using dull one liners which all seem to have been lifted from 50's cartoons. By the end I would have done anything to erase my memory of this movie, but sadly the memories stay with me. The only thing I can do is to warn others to never to watch this movie. However it proves the rumors true Carrot Top can't act worth a damn.",0
"It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?  !!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!  The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.  I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain",0
"""Fate"" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.  The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.  Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled ""The Number 23"" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.  The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10",0
"This Aussie flick filmed in 1999 does an OK job of portraying a bunch of small-time crooks in Kings Cross, Sydney. The plot focuses on the plight of a young would-be crim who's life is in danger after botching a job for his future boss. Very well acted by Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown. The plot is fairly believable with some very humorous moments in one scene which revolves around a bank heist. The setting-up of various themes central to the story is quite well done. Eg. When one crim is searching for bullets for his gun. I personally have a dislike for gratuitous violence in movies, and in this regard, the movie did not offend. It attempted and succeeded in showing us the human side of the baddies such as Bryan Brown. The rest of the cast did an OK job, without any real stand-outs that I remember. The direction was very good in succeeding in making a believable movie that provided good entertainment. The main overriding feature that makes this a good movie is the acting and direction of Heath Ledger and his successful portrayal of a naive young man who makes stupid mistakes for short-term gratification, thinking he is indestructible and not realizing that there are sinister people waiting to pounce on any mistake. The director, Gregor Jordan, deserves special mention. Rating in my book - 7 (of 10).",1
"This almost documentary look at an enterprising boy who lives in the body shop area outside of New York is real all the way. Real lighting. Real sound. Less editing in the whole movie than in 1 minute of most movies. And while there is very little script, there is a story. Shot in primary colors, almost all red, white, blue and yellow, we get a real sense of the life of a boy who is making something from nothing. He has a place to live that he makes his own, has a good job, and is trying to bring his sister into his little universe. The people in the chop shop area also give us a look at this culture which I didn't know about. They mostly seem decent and pay Ale what seems like daily, seeming truly concerned about his well being. The actor (I think) playing Ale says more with one facial expression than one can imagine. This reminded me what a true small movie can accomplish. It shows what kids are capable of, even without much support and love. Definitely recommend.",1
"I suffered the watching of this movie at Sitges Festival last month. If there would be a possibility of ""unfilm"" a movie to avoid its existence, this should be the first in the list. María Lidón isn't a director, she is just a dumb woman that pretends that holding a camera with the hand and shout ""action"" makes her a professional film maker. What a mistake! The movie itself is pointless and a total waste of good actors that could be doing something better in another project. Val Kilmer does nothing but place his face in front of the camera. His character don't have specific weight in the movie. The same thing can tell about Joss Ackland, Vincent Gallo or Joaquim De Almeida. It's a shame the way Rade Serbedzija's character has been written. WARNING SPOILERS  He spends most of the time alone in the tunnels talking with himself in the way (now I'm doing this, now I'm low of bats, I'll search in my bag, now I'm turning left, now I'm turning right...) only to bring the audience a clear idea about his actions. It's simply nonsense and proves the lack of talent of the director. END OF SPOILERS  The usual joke about this piece of garbage among the audience was that the title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO",0
"To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With ""Heaven Can Wait"", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play ""Birthday"", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century ""falls asleep without realizing it"", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****",0
"A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist… I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.",0
"This is so overly clichéd you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.  So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.  Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.  After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How cliché'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.  So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.  Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.  AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!",0
"After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.",0
"This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the ""Final Solution"" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.  The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave ""legal respectibility"" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered ""I'll remember you"" and Firth replies ""you should! I'm very well-known!!"" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.  I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.",0
"From the beginning of this film,with it's ""The Lost boys"" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. ""The Covenant"" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really ""directed"" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed ""artsy"" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the ""boys"" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with ""How about I make you my Whee-aytch!"" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie ""Stealth"" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of ""Charmed"", and watch ""The Lost boys"" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch ""The Covenant"", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.",0
"The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her and her daughter will do than the state of her husband.  The Merchant of Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character. This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont difficult for the majority of people to relate to.   The Merchant of Four Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you.",1
"Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a ""Tabloid Musical"") EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.  Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.  However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.  This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song (""Americana"") to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, ""Il Bacio"" by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.  Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive ""Little Miss Fixit"" screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first ""Teen Idol"" with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive ""wistful wallflower"" adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully ""adult"" role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and ""solo attraction"" status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.  It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only ""superstar"" attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an ""Honorary"" Oscar"" in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.  In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's ""Let's Put On a Show"" musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.  Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty ""Americana."" As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.  By contrast, Durbin's presentation of ""Il Bacio,"" is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her ""classical"" selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional ""stand 'n sing"" variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though ""miniature diva"" Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with ""jazz baby"" Judy, and their delightful duetting of ""Americana"" in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan ""Number One Asset"" Durbin out).  A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance!",1
"The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.",0
"The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.  If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.  Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else.",0
"I like dark humor and non-PC stuff, but not if it is with no purpose but to elevate yourself. Bashing a group of people without any trace of self-irony is crap.  There are people who could make concentration camp jokes funny, but whoever made this film unfortunately failed even in the VERY easy task of making fun about Turks in Germany. It is a very easy task, but if your are the Germany equivalent of an inbred redneck (=inbred Southerner from a village where virginity is often lost to farm animals) you certainly will fail at this and also at life. I have heard and seen so many funny stuff about minorities in Germany, but this ""movie"" (this piece of crap being listed here is an insult to the next worst movie) sucks like the calf the makers of this movie met some years ago.",0
"What can be said about a movie about a cross dressing gangster? Not that much. With the average indie style film-making, this film has the timing all wrong. Editing is just awful. As far as the gangster story, it might have been pulled off if the gangsters didn't lack character. Everyone just seemed to be there for some sort of punch line. None of which were funny. The usual suspects in this film are the hooker with the heart of gold, the dying mafia father that wishes his son would make his business legit, the best friend with the ""zany"" one-liners. But the main character, the gangster that likes to dress up like a girl. Only his motivation for dressing up like a girl is that he got mugged by a woman? Weird. The ending of the movie had to be the nail in the coffin. It was anti-climatic to say the least. I mean I understand how indie filmmakers don't have the equipment for a proper shot out, but they might as well been using water guns. Overall, I would say the hype leading up to it, (red carpet premiere in Vancouver), it was a disappointment.",0
"This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.  Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.  This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.",1
"The acting is good, the action is good, and so is the plot. If you like some good, fast entertainment with an air for authentic action scenes, not the Hollywood (looks great, but is totally ridiculous) kind, you're in for a special treat. Just sit back and enjoy...",1
"Egads.  I used to think Keannu Reeves was the worst actor in Hollywood. I not so sure anymore, Willy gives Keannu some stiff competition with his ""I'm made of plaster"" performance in this movie.  Combine that with the fact that there is almost no plot, and not a single likable character, and it's pretty hard to recommend this turkey.  Natasha tries her best, but even Julia Roberts couldn't save this flick from obscurity.  Avoid it unless it's really late and there's nothing else on. -Oh heck, in that case just read a book.",0
"Dan Burgess is a nice guy. He happens to be a Christian. Dan can't get a date with a girl and thinks that all of his friends are having all of the fun. He is constantly being bothered by non-believers and being made fun of.  Dan prays one night, and wishes he was never a believer in Jesus.  His prayer is answered for one day. Things get hairy from there. An angel appears to Dan and explains his prayer is granted.  So, all of the impact that Dan has had on starting a Christian club.  He be-friends Scot Parks and making a difference, is erased for one day.  Dan's eyes are opened. His life really did make a difference.",1
"Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, ""Meet John Doe"" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.  Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.  S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper.",1
"An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.  The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as ""Singin' Sandy"" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!  Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.  Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al ""Fuzzy"" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue.",1
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.,0
"Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.  It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like ""House of the Dead"" or ""S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers"" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.  I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.  Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this!",0
"Good (not great) little horror film with a high ""creep"" factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment (""The Honeymoon"")). Solid acting and a few truly ""scary"" moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. ""Surprise"" ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS.",1
"Let me say this new He-Man cartoon is not destroying childhood memories, as I didn't like the old He-Man cartoon either. I loved the action figures, but I found the cartoon to be corny and I hated the storyline (the He-Man I liked was the one from the very early, pre-cartoon mini-comics included in the figure boxes, where He-Man was a Barbarian, the Sword of Power was split in two pieces, and there was no Prince Adam, no Shazam-ripoff premise, and no Orko). Anyway, let's leave the old stuff alone.  The new He-Man cartoon (or at least this pilot) is a disgrace on its own, s it represents both the worst cheesiness of the old show, and the worst tendences of nowadays. I watched it because I had heard the in-your-face morals of the old show were (thankfully) gone, and this one had more swordplay and character development. But I encountered an awful mishmash of the worst clichés of the genre, characters I couldn't help but hate, and the sadly inevitable Matrix-esque visual style.  I think it was a good idea to give a bit of a background to the characters, as it was showing a pre-face-peeling Skeletor, but that's how far the character development goes, aside from the usual coming-to-age rubbish I see coming in the subsequent episodes, where this teenybopper Adam will be learning the responsibility of his new-acquired powers, blah blah. At least in the old show Adam was not a spoiled brat! I found myself hating his guts. That's what we get when they put out an adventure show aimed at pre-teens: pretty faces and wanna-be-cool-and-look-juvenile clothes. I should check new episodes to see if N'Sync make a special appearance. Man, does this show remind me to the 1996 Flash Gordon stinkbomb cartoon!  Dialogue? Ha! It follows absolutely every cliché in the book, from the goody-lil-two-shoes Randor in the opening scene to Skeletor's immortal ""Oh, and He-Man... I lied!"" in the ending. And Skeletor's voice is still the same high-pitch kind than in the old series. 20 years, and nothing we have learnt.  And sure, nowadays there can't exist something remotely action-related that's not Matrix-style. Leave Anime to the Japanese, folks, think fresh ideas. And seeing the characters' poses while fighting didn't help either.  Of course, we have our usual dose of PCness: Evil-Lyn (now I think about it, who the hell comes up with these names?) has no yellow skin now, but grey-ish. Oh, so no Asian people will be offended. I bet Jitsu won't appear in the show either. Shades of the 1996 FG again, where Ming the Merciless was a green, toad-like alien!  People are complaining about Cringer's lack of speech. I don't think I would have liked this more or less if Cringer spoke, he's corny enough this way. And you have your extra ration of cheese with Orko! The shocking thing is, probably many of the people who (rightfully) hated Jar Jar Binks, might be huge Orko fans...  I watched the feature-lenght pilot, and I've had enough. Leave the series alone. 2 out of 10.",0
"Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens....",1
"The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called ""McCinsey's Island"". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump ""Guest House Paradiso"" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.  Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show ""Bottom"", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.  I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like ""Trainspotting"", ""28 Days Later"", ""Four Weddings And A Funeral"" and the brilliant ""Shaun Of The Dead"" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. ""Guest House Paradiso"" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. ""I'm watching this so they don't have to"" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.  Trust me, I used to love the ""Bottom"" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's ""Drop Dead Fred"" seem like ""The Godfather"" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.",0
"This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video.",0
"I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and ""the boys"" in that school. It was an English ""public"" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for ""his lads"", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a ""dance hall girl""(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to ""dance hall"" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely ""lower class"". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she ""leavens"" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the ""British Invasion""...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like ""Chips""...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story!",1
"Körkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies, directed by Victor Sjöstrøm, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf. The film tells the story of brutal drinker David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells the story of the Phantom Chariot (Körkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong. Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not available on international DVD.",1
"This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?",0
"I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.  I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.  Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.  Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.  Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.  ""That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though."" this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, ""What about this?"" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says ""Are you okay?"" or ""How'd you do that?"" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.  What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said ""Babe?"" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.  All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.",0
"I was rather disappointed. The first Tetsuo made me an INSTANT Tsukamoto fan, from the first 5 mins of the film. It was fresh, innovative, and just.....different. I rather enjoy having a movie be in your face and push all those ""make you squirm"" buttons. Tetsuo did just that where for me, few movies can.  For those of us who enjoy getting a breath of fresh air, those that appreciate those offbeat styles used that make indie films so worthwhile, Testuo II will likely be a disspointment. If your looking for that visceral ""HYPER-KINETIC"" feel of the first movie, skip this one, as thats all been stripped away. Tetsuo II is for some odd reason, just a typical Hollywood style action flick. I was rather confused. However, it's still worthwhile in my opinion for any die-hard Tsukamoto fan.",0
"Director/screenwriter Diane English's 2008 update of George Cukor's 1939 MGM classic comedy unfortunately shows more mothballs than its predecessor. Based on Clare Booth Luce's shrewdly observant 1936 play on the relationships that evolve among a strictly female group of pampered Manhattan socialites, the story would seem ripe for a contemporary remake. Instead, because of English's thematic overreach, the production comes across as an extended therapy session with a paucity of wit. What's more, the diverse lifestyles of women today have been reduced to sitcom-level stereotypes in this movie, and the original play's central conceit of eliminating men from the storyline seems even more contrived given the openly pansexual evolution that has occurred among men as well as women since the 1930's. To add insult to injury, the recent big screen adaptation of HBO's ""Sex and the City"" did this sort of sorority-style dishing much better and with far sharper fangs.  The skeleton of the original play remains as the story centers on wealthy Mary Haines, who gave up her promising clothing design career to become the devoted wife of a Wall Street financial wizard. Like ""Sex and the City"", she is surrounded by three best friends - Sylvie Fowler, a successful, cutthroat magazine editor in the mold of Miranda Priestly in ""The Devil Wears Prada"" (yet another film this echoes); perennially pregnant Edie Cohen representing the stay-at-home wife; and Alex Fisher, a lesbian author who seems to represent every repressed group generally excluded from such an exclusive clique. Through a mouthy manicurist, they find out Mary's husband is having an affair with man-eater Crystal Allen, a perfume girl at Saks more than willing to break up a marriage as she struggles to become an actress. The rest of the plot doesn't matter much since it becomes a series of scenes focused on sisterly bonding and bickering, none of it very illuminating and without the satirical zing that buoyed the 1939 movie.  Looking strangely youthful at 47, Meg Ryan seems to play Mary in a manner that tries to resuscitate the goodwill she engendered in the 1990's with ""When Harry Met Sally"" and ""Sleepless in Seattle"". It's not that she isn't age-appropriate here, but her familiar sprightliness seems at odds with the character's passive nature. Annette Bening fares somewhat better in the scene-stealing Rosalind Russell role of Sylvie because she has proved to be adept at conveying hardness while masking vulnerability, but her character goes through such a trite transformation that it undermines the actress' performance severely. Poor Eva Mendes has to play Crystal as a shallow, transparent shopgirl versus the smart, hard-edged cookie Joan Crawford got to play. Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith are scooted way to the sidelines as Edie and Alex, respectively. Much better are Candice Bergen as Mary's savvy, supportive mother and Cloris Leachman as the non-nonsense housekeeper.  Probably reflecting the lackluster box office response to the film's release, the 2008 DVD doesn't have a robust set of extras. There are two deleted scenes - one with Crystal and her friends having a girls' night-in as a contrast to Mary's elaborate garden party, and the other an extension of Bette Midler's cameo as a multi-married Hollywood agent counseling Mary during a late night at a yoga camp. Two featurettes round out the extras"" ""The Women: The Legacy"" about the history behind the film from the original 1936 play, and ""The Women Behind the Women"" which has the cast and crew speak endlessly about female self-empowerment and self-image. The irony is that this version of ""The Women"" directed and scripted by a woman takes such a patronizing look at women.",0
"Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.  I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.  I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!",0
"Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!  Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.  The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.",0
"This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch ""Mr. Imperium"", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.",0
"Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can be.",1
"This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts.",1
"In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.  Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.  That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. ""Broken Embraces"" is a remake of ""Law of Desire"", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.  For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.  As in ""Bad Education"", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in ""Bad Education"", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.  Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.  But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which ""Broken Embraces"" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually ""Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown"" (1988), only this time it is called ""Chicks and Suitcases"". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of ""Broken Embraces"" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.  In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch ""All about my mother"", or ""Tie me up"", or ""High Heels"", or ""Matador"", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good.",0
"With my two stars I will probably make it to the head of the IMDb „hated it""-list for this apparently tremendously popular TV series.  Not least because of the enthusiastic comments on this website, I decided to purchase a DVD edition of the series. Because I usually find British humour suits me just fine. I gave up in the middle of the second instalment – and according to other comments the „funniest"" bits were already through.  So now I know, according to another comment, that I definitely lack a sense of humour. But then I had to laugh like crazy while watching (and re-watching) Fawlty Towers to which Black Books is – albeit faintly – thematically related. Why the different reactions? It might be a mere Generation Thing, and yet the differences can be pointed out.  Both Fawlty Towers and Black Books are set in businesses which are meant to sustain their owners financially. Both businesses are not successful but seem – by a miracle – to survive. Fawlty Towers is funny because the protagonists have to deal with situations they cannot cope with. The funniness lies in the fact that they make a serious effort to succeed and while laughing one also feels sorry for them. Black Books has no situations, it's just there and the owner passes his time feeling sorry for himself. If a situation threatens to arise, it is quickly shooed away. It is remarkable how fast and how often a subject is dropped and the protagonists turn to something entirely different to produce an additional joke. Telling jokes – and not very good ones - seems to be all Black Books is about. Why a bookstore? A hardware store would have done the job just as well.   No, stop, wait. It's a bookshop because below the veneer of rudeness, vulgarity and arrogance the protagonists are supposed to be delicate and CULTURED. They are not some lowbrow gorillas but bumbling semi-intellectual losers. Hey, they are like you and me. The manner in which the series makes that claim is the only way I can explain its success. There is nothing remarkable in the protagonist's actions, what's special about them is their economically unrealistic living conditions many viewers maybe envy them for. That protagonists that narcissistic and vapid convey a sense of belonging and companionship seems to be a trademark of the time the First World is presently living in.  Recently I watched Tittybangbang, also a fairly new British TV comedy show. I found it uproariously funny. It is often quite tasteless or xenophobic – but always with a purpose and hitting the bull's eye in its social criticism. The humour is mainly created by situations or by characters with a purpose. The low ratings in IMDb might indicate that this brand of humour is not in keeping with the times, but I am glad it's still alive and kicking and hope it will continue to do so.",0
"Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!  How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!  At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!",0
"I saw this cartoon accidentally on television one night when I couldn't get to sleep. It didn't help in the slightest. I found myself staring up at the ceiling, trying to forget that face. I could quite happily never see this cartoon again, simply because of that face.  Now, don't get me wrong - I love fairy tales and nursery rhymes as much as anyone. But this twisted and terrifying rendition simply is disturbing. It is mainly the cruel laughter, and the exaggerated features that terrify me, and I still have nightmares because of it. Please, I urge you not to allow your children to see this. It is far, FAR too scary. Please, I pray you, keep it away.",0
"no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and ""the killer is out here somewhere"" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!",0
"This looks like one of these Australian movies done by ""talented"" students and funded by the government. It is chock full of smart shots of colors and shapes and verbal excursions into Freudian psychology to be appreciated by art students and teachers alike, but in general it is perceived a stupid mockery of good cinema, good storytelling and generally good taste. This what happens I guess when art students become so obsessively indulgent. ""Pink Flamingoes"" is miles ahead one the same subjects. Some porn movies from 70s are far more watchable and inspiring. Book of Revelation is not entirely without merits, but as an overall experience it is well below average B-grade.",0
"Given this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.",0
"If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.  If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.",1
"This is a decent effort for a B-Movie Martial Arts actioner. Ian Jacklin, a former North American cruiser weight Kickboxing champion, is the lead and acquits himself well in the action scenes. The muscular Matthias Hues gets a chance to add more to his Martial Arts bad guy persona in this film than in all of his many others and if you are a fan of The Teutonic Titan, rent this movie now!  Renee Griffin is also noteworthy as the romantic interest in this film. She starts off with attitude but soon warms up to the hero and they make ""The beast with two backs"" in a very stylish fashion.  The fight scenes are good in the American tradition (NO Hong Kong acrobatics here!) with added realism from having Benny ""The Jet"" Urquidez playing himself as John Larson's (Jacklin) trainer.  All in all this film seems to have more sub plots than most in its genre so you get MORE of a story.",1
"Junior high and high school teachers will find ""The Cure"" an excellent teaching tool, both as a companion to ""Huckleberry Finn"" or as a stand-alone lesson. Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for teenagers. Writing prompts centered around the symbolism of the tennis shoe are particularly effective. I also suggest directed class discussion about how Eric evolves from manipulative user to loving friend.",1
"I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.  I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.  It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.  I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes",0
"Spike Feresten is a comic genius. 'Talkshow' demonstrates a fresh take on the kind of odd ball irreverence that have made shows like Letterman and The Daily Show successful. His likability is palpable. He seems to find the unique angle of the joke, not the predictable sitcom path...thank God. His comedy is reminiscent of the award winning Arrested Development (cross your fingers that 'Talkshow' has a longer life span). The topics he highlights tend to be those things that pass by unnoticed by everyone else, yet when he creates a joke around them out you wonder how you missed it the first time around. I particularly enjoyed the sketches...""Unfair Target"" will be a cult classic in no time. Set your Tivo's people...this is a show not to be missed.",1
"Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.",0
"Clearly patterned after the first gangster movies that Warner produced the same year,Little Caesar (1931) and The Public Enemy (1931),this gangster movie is one of the better efforts I've seen. Although not quite in the same league as the previous mentioned classics, it has a powerful performance by young Sylvia Sidney.She's magnificent and delivers her lines more natural than perhaps anyone did at the time.Gary Cooper is better than usual at this stage in his career and shows signs of what would follow the next few years when he rose to the top. The movie has some fascinating villains in Paul Lukas (never seen him this detestable) and Guy Kibbee (what a shock to see him act the hoodlum).The direction of Rouben Mamoulian is very inventive,probably the first voice-over to show a persons thoughts appear in this movie. If you get the chance to see this little gangster flick, don't let the chance go by.",1
This movie sucked wind. I imagine that the other 300 people that gave this movie such high votes must be independent filmmakers. I can't imagine that anyone else could possibly find it funny or even slightly entertaining. I feel like 100 minutes of my life were just wasted.,0
"Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.  Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.  Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.  The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.  ""Sex Is Comedy"" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style.",1
"This is a film that really makes me cringe. In 1951, MGM and Looney Toons were making some of their very best cartoons--with amazing animation, exceptional backgrounds and great stories. Then, in the late 40s, a new style of animation began to appear (such as the ""Crusader Rabbit"" series on TV)--animation with extremely simplistic artwork in order to save money. Unfortunately, Columbia Picture's cynical ploy worked!! Instead of the public hating the toons (as they should have), many accepted them and the Oscar people (AMPAS) actually gave this film the award for Best Animated Short--giving legitimacy for an inferior product. Unfortunately, in the dollars and sense world of Hollywood, this soon began to creep into the products of legitimate studios--resulting in rather crappy cartoons. Later, it got even worse as in addition to lousy animation and backgrounds, the stories themselves became almost unbearable for adults to watch. The cleverness and style of the classic cartoons were gone. And for this tragedy, I blame, in part, GERALD MCBOING-BOING--one of the granddaddies of cheap cartoons. The story isn't that bad but the animation is a horror and listening to the kid saying ""boing-boing"" incessantly is a pain.",0
"There are a select few cartoon films where animals or something ""not human"" is portraying human beings and I think that this film is one of them. Apart from a few points of the plot and the characters - this film could be changed with all people rather than mainly animals. Although - it's good someone did not - I feel the cats are jolly good in this film portraying humans! :-)  This film also focuses on quite a lot of adult issues - which is rather odd for a Disney film. It mentions alcohol*, shows a dog teaching another dog how to attack ""tresspassing"" humans and it shows a male cat called (Abraham Delacy Gieuseppe Casi Thomas) O' Malley, fancying a female cat, in a surprisingly human and adult way.  As a cartoon film - or just a film in general, I feel this is pretty good quality - the storyline and characters are especially good. The film (in general) is set in France and you meet a family of cats - the mother Duchess and her kittens Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz. You also meet the kind (rich) old woman who adores the cats, the butler Edgar and an old man (who has CLEARLY lost his marbles) called George. The kind old woman discusses her will with George and Edgar overhears that what he receives from the will he will have after the cats have it. He is INCREDIBLY cross with this - and has an evil scheme in mind...  A very cute film for every age - enjoy ""Aristocats""!  *Not including ""Basil the Great Mouse Detective"" and a few others maybe which I cannot think of at the moment.",1
"I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again.",1
"I've seen Riverdance in person and nothing compares to the video, but the show is awesome. The dancers are amazing. The music is impacting. And the overall performance is outstanding. I've never seen anything like it! I suggest that you see this show if you can!!!",1
"Even people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie.  Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation.  I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending as this.",1
"Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one.",1
"To put in simple words or rather a word, would be best suited by PATHETIC !!!!!! The movie starts with attracting a little interest by the plot, but, BUT as few minutes by audience is getting restless for restrooms and getting snacks, or to get a breathe of fresh air outside the closed dark hall....  It seems like watching a movie from 1960's where colors were dull, directed by a debutant, and acted by high school students ! Movie revolves about a American high headed actress trying make a comeback into films by acting in one of the not-so-great Indian movie. Her acting is real Sad complimented by the worse dialogue delivery.  OverAll: i would not recommend anyone to watch this movie Still want to watch: Then try watching it at home, when some TV channel airs it, believe me it would be fun as this movie would not get a Single advertisement and no sponsors.  And better carry a aspirin, u might need it if you cant find a remote control to change channel ! p.s. I have no clue, if the other reviewers even watched the movie ? i did and wasted my $10 on the ticket !",0
"I only saw this film once a quarter of a century ago, yet it's impact has never left me and I can still remember even now my reactions to it.I was mesmerised by the breadth and the sheer beauty of so much of the photography. I was astounded that an American studio could produce such a European film with it's slow pace and its unfocused plot. The lack of any strong characters felt like a flaw but I raged at the completely unnecessary ending on the yacht which seemed as though it was bolted on to give some kind of plot cohesion and which was entirely at odds with the style of the rest of the picture.It was also refreshing to see a western which made no pretence about the brutality and exploitation that so often was the unfortunate detritus of the American Dream.The western scenes and sets also had an authenticity which was entirely new to me and which prefigured the recent Deadwood series.The film was massively cut for the American audience and its my very real wish that in these days of Director's Cuts that Michael Cimino is given the opportunity of a fresh edit in the light of reflection - a cut which could turn this ill fated movie into the masterpiece it had the potential to become. I have now seen the original first cut and the network of relationships makes so much more sense,although Christopher Walken is responsible mainly for carrying this off. If only De Niro and not Kris Kristofferson had Played the main lead!There was still a massive preoccupation with creating the reality and atmosphere to the detriment of a good script. Nevertheless, the camera work was so cleverly handled that at times you could almost believe you were inside the action yourself.And there were many special moments. Everybody arguing in the hall in different languages trying to overcome their national differences and seek some unity of action in face of the impending disaster gave a real insight into the difficulties facing the welding together of the USA: especially when the threat came from a combination of the old elite and money.Nate's faltering approach to Ella when she first visited his cabin stood in stark contrast to the violence that was to follow and was another one. I had a special showing with a large group of mates to see the new cut and we all enjoyed it whilst having varying reservations.This revisionist and much closer to the truth version of events was probably too much for Americans to take when the film was first released but we all felt it had enormous merit and that its place in cinema history was also due for major revision",1
"This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.  Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.  I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.  Grade: D",0
"A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do now is waiting for an approval certificate.  Then these two individuals meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it.  The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment, Delphic but full of desire.  Two main characters are played by Trine Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing.  This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere, whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way.",1
"So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of ""Sleeping with the Enemy"" is an extremely stylish and well-made films.  Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his.  Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh chanting his trademark ""I love you, K...k...k...kiran!"" or the feel-good mushy scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like leaving your eat in boredom.  Each and every song on the soundtrack is ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances! Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good.  Overall, Darr is g...g...g...great! ;)",1
"""On a Clear Day You Can See Forever"" is nothing more than a New Age update of the ""Pygmalion"" / ""My Fair Lady"" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.  You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No ""Get Me to the Church on Time"" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no ""there"" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.  All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.  The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.  But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned ""My Fair Lady,"" is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.  If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.",0
"I remember when skateboarding had it's rebirth in the 70s. I begged my parents for money to by a second-hand skateboard from a friend. It was a piece of junk, complete with clay wheels and everything. I also remember reading Skateboarder Magazine and being both completely impressed and totally terrified of the Dogtown crew. Skating never became a way of life for me, but in some ways it has always been a part of my life, whether it is using a board for transportation or just having a bunch of friends that skate.  This film is a brilliant documentary of the real birth of modern day skating. Watching this crew turn skating from the flat boring hobby it was into the vertical lifestyle it has become had me sitting slack-jawed for 90 minutes.   It's amazing that enough footage from this period still exists to have created this film, and thank god for that. The footage is brilliant. It gave me the feeling of watching an old Buster Keaton film: I've seen some of the tricks Keaton did repeated countless times in other films since then, but when you go back and see the first person to perform that trick it's amazing that, not only were they the first person to try it successfully, but that they lived through it and made it seem effortless. That's the feeling this film gave me. Yeah, I've seen people skate pools before, but to watch the FIRST people skating pools and inventing the tricks that eventually became the basics of modern skating is like watching the facade of the house fall on Keaton, leaving him standing safely in the frame of a window. It's absolutely brilliant to watch something that, up until that point, had never been tried before, but since, has been tried by almost everyone.  This film is beautiful to watch and incredible to listen to. The soundtrack is one of the best I've ever heard in a film. This is a film that will appeal to people whether they like skating or not. I've talked to a couple of friends of mine who made their girlfriends sit through this film after heavy protest, and they all said that their girlfriends were mesmerized by the end of the film and loved it as much as they did.   As for the previous comments on this board that complain about the film being too self congratulatory, I think that's an unfair disparagement. I liked seeing these guys get excited about their past. They created something that influenced their sport and changed it forever. They have the right to pat themselves on the back. They were stars for doing what they loved to do. Most of these guys/girls never achieved the staggering success Tony Hawk enjoys today, but that kind of success wasn't available to skaters then. Sure, they had some success, but more importantly, they have been able to live a life doing what they love to do, and, as we see in the end, almost all of them still surf, skate or work in the surf/skate industry. How many of us can say that we have been able to live our lives and have been successful by breaking all the rules and doing what we love to do? They can. My hat's off to the Dogtown and Z-Boys for being themselves and changing the world of skateboarding forever.",1
"This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.",0
"This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.  This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.  Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:  ""Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man...""  ""oonga-bunga""   ""me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man""",0
"The story in this movie is fairly implausible B grade stuff, but the script called for a creepy guy to play the lead, and in 1940, that meant Peter Lorre. And Peter is at his creepiest in this one as island owner Stephen Danel, who gets prisoners paroled to his custody to work at his island diamond mine. Upon arrival the parolees discover that they are slave mine workers that can be beaten or killed at the whim of Danel.  Only two things seem to have it worse off than the slaves; Danel's wife, and monkeys. Monkeys tick him off so much that his violence towards them probably leads to the only meat the slaves get.  Lorre is perfect in his role here, and creeps up the screen in industrial-strength fashion. Although the script is not Casablanca caliber, the editing is very tight and there are no wasted scenes. This is a very watchable story, but I'm not sure what niche this movie filled. Too long for a short subject, and too short for a feature length film, I'm not sure how this was marketed to theaters.  I just caught this for the first time on a late night/early morning TCM showing. Lorre fans will not want to miss this one if they haven't seen it.",1
"I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it.   Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be.   This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance",1
"I don't pretend to be a huge Asterix fan, having only seen one other movie adaption and read only two of the comics, but this was a superb movie, all the same. I only saw the English version, and found the voices to go perfectly with the characters - Brad Garret as Obelix and Sean Astin as Justforkix especially. The story itself was both interesting and truly funny (especially the contradicting name endings - all the viking names end in ""af"", while all the Gaulish names, of course, end in ""ix""), with a little romance thrown in that (I though) enhanced the story, even though it weighed down the overall production with unnecessary clichés.   The plot is this - the Viking chief, Timandahaf, is sick and tired of going to raid villages and then finding them emptied. So, he consults his ""wise man"", Cryptograf, whose entire repertoire consists of old proverbs, and Cryptograf tells him that ""fear lends the villagers wings"". Taking this literally, Timandahaf believes that fear actually allows people to fly, and sets out on an expedition to retrieve the ""Champion of Fear"", an expedition that, of course, leads him to the Gaulish village where Asterix and Obelix live.   The pair are currently very frustrated - Chief Vitalstatistix's cowardly, pacifist nephew, Justforkix, has been entrusted to them so they can train him to be a man, and the boy is making little to no progress. When Justforkix unwittingly confesses to being ""afraid of everything"" in the presence of the brainless viking Olaf, he is believed to be the ""Champion of Fear"", and is kidnapped. Asterix and Obelix are sent by Vitalstatistix to go rescue Justforkix before his father returns to the village to bring his son back home.  Ultimately, this is a great movie with few flaws besides the clichés and, at times, defective dialogs. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it wasn't true to the comic.",1
"Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the ""beast"" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.  What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.  For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some ""behind the scenes"" photos.  Later, Jeff",0
"Travolta and Thurman deserved a better movie. This one is very secondary in all aspects, not a single fresh idea. But the biggest problem is this film's ridiculous philosophy. A gang of black rappers after all their criminal activities and even killing people are becoming almost positive Mickey Mouse-like heroes performing on stage and giving away awards at the ceremony. Perhaps this matches the real life. But showing it as a quite normal ""happy-ending"" is beyond my imagination.. ""What's wrong with shooting a couple of bad Ukrainians if they are not politically correct?"" - the show must go on! That makes me think that Hollywood writers have a big problem with separating good and evil, even if the genre supposed to be a ""black comedy""..",0
"This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.  Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.  Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.  Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.  The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.  Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!",1
"Zoey 101 is such a stupid show. I don't know if that's because the snooty Jamie Lynn Spears is the prissy star of it or what, but I just know that the show sucks. It's about a girl and her brother who go to a boarding school. The jokes in this show are extremely dull and unfunny, and I hate every single character except Chase and Lola. Heck, the jokes on this show are so unfunny that they make Jack Black look like Monty Python.This show is without a doubt one of the worst shows on Nickelodeon, it's right down there with Avatar and Danny Phantom in the pit of shame, and if this show was a person with any honor, it would hang itself in shame.  1/10",0
"if filming is about vision and real life this movie is quite perfect: NUOVOMONDO talks about immigration in the USA from Italy the beginning of '900, but it speak also for now, when emigration/immigration is still a focus .   It doesn't to be rich to be a visionary film.  Acting at extra level, Charlotte Gainsbourg a star. A good challenge for the Academy Award 2007  After first Crialese's attempt, ""Respiro"", an emotional but too intellectual movie, this one has learned Fellini's and Taviani's lesson, to name just two Italian masters.  Plot is arguing, directing accurate, maybe just a little less melodrama would be more effective.  If VOLVER ( challenging for Academy Award next year ) by Almodovar is a mature movie by an always brilliant director, NUOVOMONDO deserves it more, because of his good effort to be a European movie for the American scene.  And this is it!",1
"Downhill Racer is essentially, a movie to see only for the terrific skiing sequences. Although there is a story here, Robert Redford's character, a skier trying to make the U.S. Olympic team, is so bland and unsympathetic that you wonder why to care about him at all. Gene Hackman, in an early performance, adds nicely, but this is a film that could be watched with the sound off, and it wouldn't make much of a difference.",0
"This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet ""monster""... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching ""Matlock"" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!",0
"I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.  One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.",0
"Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.",0
"I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 2.",0
"After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.  ""Du Rififi Chez les Hommes"" is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.  Title (Brazil): ""Rififi""",1
"Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.  The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.  Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie.",1
"This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).  This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.  As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.  If I could have given this a zero I would have.  Avoid this film at all costs.",0
"Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates ""Separate Lies,"" a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. ""Oh, f___ Bule,"" James says. ""Well, that's just it,"" Ann says. ""I am f___ing Bule."" James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.  Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.  There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.  Brilliant film.",1
"As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.",0
"Warning Might contain spoilers  i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines ""COme get me PUmpkinman"" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.",0
"The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as ""beyond belief!"" ""no words can express how I feel about this"" ""This movie will move you"" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the ""gun's eye view"" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.",0
"SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.  I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with ""Oldboy"" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.  The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, ""sang"" means ""blood"" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in ""Badlands"", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.  Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.  Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.  The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.  All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time.",1
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.,0
"Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: ""They will never look for it here"" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!  Grz Da Jean Holland",1
"Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing ""Que Sera, Sera"" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10.",1
"Rocketship X-M should be viewed by any serious movie buff for the following reasons:  1) It is one the first -- and the few -- movies not to have a happy ending. Doubtless the effect was more profound in post-World War II America than it would be today, but nonetheless the sad ending adds to the film's message.  2) It is also one of the first movies to deal with space travel in a serious fashion, using space as a valid setting for drama. The lack of scientific background notwithstanding, the movie stands on its own as dramatic fare. It's not so much a space drama as it is a drama set in space.  3) The anti-nuclear war message is delivered in a serious manner that is not lost in sfx involving large grasshoppers, men, or animal. The effect of Martian society from nuclear devastation is starkly and frankly presented. The fact that the survivors from the expedition crash land and as such are unable to preach the lesson learned on Mars adds another element of sadness to the tragic ending.  Sterno says take a ride on Rocketship X-M.",0
"At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!  And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.  You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!",1
"Sometime ago I watched a video of Paul Thomas Anderson in which he express the big interest that he has in porn films and how this industry could've produce better films and in consequence a complete genre and not just sex in video tape. Paul Thomas Anderson put his own believes of porn industry in the character played in a terrific way by Burt Reynolds. His name is Jack Horner, a director whose biggest dream is to make a ""real"" film that can keep the viewer in suspense because of the great dramatic story and, at the same time, exciting with the beauty… and with the ""big cocks and tits"". Soon as he meets Eddie Adams (Mark Walhberg), he believes that he has found the new star for his films. And that's how the story of the young Eddie in the porn industry begins.  The film begins with a sequence inside a night club where we can see all the persons that will be part of Eddie's life and later we can see them outside the porn industry, living their daily routine. But soon we can see them inside the porn industry and after only one party, the story of the new Eddie begins, the story of Dirk Diggler. All of them will taste the real success with Dirk as the main star, winning lots of prizes and helping Jack to make real his biggest dream with a series of films about Brock Landers, the new character of Dirk. This sort of exploitation films are an amazing success and for Jack are his firsts ""real"" films. But here is the beginning of the end and the beginning of the ""horrible 80's"" when there is going to be $ex, DRUGS and Rock & Roll for Dirk and pals. But we all know that the excesses can destroy any person and the erectile dysfunction can destroy any porn star and here the film focuses in their lives after the total success and how everybody is having a real bad time with many problems due to society's bad look to porn industry and to a period with many excesses. In Dirk's decadence, after trying and failing in the music industry, there's a brilliant sequence that can resume in a perfect way how the things are going for Dirk and his friends. That sequence is the one of his first drug deal, with the appearance of Alfred Molina, which ends in a total mess. Is funny for us and a terrible experience for Dirk and pals but there's always a solution if you get back in what you know and when Dirk is back, Brock is back.  Well I haven't mention most of the characters in my sort of a summary but I must say that all are amazingly well developed. The cast is just superb with the best performance that I have seen of Mark Walhberg. Julianne Moore has a powerful performance in a really moving character; Reilly, Macy, Hoffman, Heather Graham, Guzman, etc are just memorable, all of their characters with funny and sad moments.  Finally, I really love the amazing cinematic style of Anderson here with a unique view to the porn industry of the late 70's and early 80's. I used to say that ""Magnolia"" was my favourite of Anderson but right now, after watching all except ""Sidney"", I can't say that I have a favourite because I love them all!  PS: somewhere I read that this film is the ""Scorsese film"" of Anderson so I'm more than sure that if you love ""Goodfellas"" and ""Casino"" you will love this one too. I f*cking love ""Boogie Nights""!",1
"Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle ""adventure"". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage…) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made ""Linda"" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, ""Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro"" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and – even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes ""Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro"" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.",0
"Most Christmas movies have a ""redemption"" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it.   BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip?",1
A good entertainment but nothing more : in this western we are between the classics and the spaghetti ones. This provides us a good a conventional story but it's always a pleasure to see Robert Mitchum with his legendary flegma although he isn't as fit as in the forties or the fifties. And don't forget David Carradine is the son of John Carradine,1
"Computing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of a computer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap tap tapping . That's much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sits in front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how many looks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes the composer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director uses there's not much excitement down to the fact that there's few things less exciting than watching somebody on a computer   There's a few other problems too much of them factual errors regarding how computers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that is both turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that when THE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand how computers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS at length but since we now live in a global village where nearly every household in the western world has their own computer the audience are certainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And of course there's too many instances where someone acts stupid or out of character at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makes THE NET a very mediocre movie",0
this movie is certainly worth a watch. it's full of action. it's also humorous. you'll laugh until your stomach hurts if you watch this movie. this movie also includes lots of hi-tech things hence the name gen-y. i recommend you to watch the prequel of this movie which is gen-x.,1
"This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars.",1
"I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.",1
"This is actually a very good surreal mystery movie, despite the description that tries to sell it as a Sci-Fi movie. Balkan stars as a woman haunted by mysterious visions and lost memories that she is trying to piece together. She spends the majority of the movie trying to make sense of her visions. Very atmospheric and effective. It is true that Kinski does not appear very much in this film, but the staring actors are very good. There is only an English dubbed version available in the US, and the dubbing leaves something to be desired, but the actors do a very good job. The cinematography, by Academy Award winner Vittorio Storaro is excellent. An earlier Giallo by director Bazzoni, THE FIFTH CORD, is also excellent, and also lensed by Storarro.",1
"Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!  Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of ""Reefer Madness"" going insane for no reason.  Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.  Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.",0
"Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.",1
"I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.  BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.  They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).  BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the ""Suburban kids goes to the hood""-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.  THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).  Especially in a movie where ""the monster"" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.  The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the ""proffesional"" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.  Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.  4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.",0
My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment.,1
"Poorly done political actioner. Badly photographed, acted, and directed. Every single scene is underlighted, including those very few that are shot during the daytime. It doesn't matter what the location is. At an important conference in the White House, no lights are on, and the only available lighting is a gloomy blue that is filtered through a few windows. The primier of China conducts an earth-shattering phone conversation under conditions of such intense chiaroscuro that he should be contemplating a bust of Homer in a Rembrandt painting. Honest. It's as if he had a tiny spotlight on his face and was otherwise in total darkness. The slow motion deaths are by now obligatory in any ill-thought-out movie.  Roy Scheider and Maria Conchita Alonzo do well by their roles, but Scheider is rarely on screen. The other performances are dismissable. There is a pretty Oriental woman in a short tight skirt who totes a gun and is right out of a Bond movie who's accent suggests a childhood spent in Basset, Nebraska, and who should have remained the model she probably started out as. Whoever plays the surviving Secret Service agent aboard the cruise ship was probably picked for the part because he looked most like Johnny Depp, not because of any display of talent. The Chinese villains, representing both Taiwan and mainland China, hiss and grin as they threaten the heroes.   The script is pretty awful, recycled from other, better films. There is a lot of shooting aboard the ship and practically everyone winds up mincemeat. Two thirds of the way through, the ship explodes into the expected series of fireballs. Then the movie splits into two related parts. Part one, another shootout, this time in a waterfront warehouse. Part two, an exchange between the Vice President, now acting president, and the oily Chinese premiere, lifted out of both ""Dr. Strangelove"" and ""Fail Safe."" We unwittingly launch our missiles. They launch theirs in retaliation. We cannot convince them that our launch was accidental, even though we offer to help them destroy our own missiles. There is even the George C. Scott/ Walter Matthau general who argues that their ""nucular"" armory can't match ours so we should hit them with everything we've got. More fireballs.   The end comes none too soon.",0
"The animation is great, I'll concede to that. But Disney perpetuated every stereotype we Alaskans have been trying to overcome for the last two generations. And the names, I mean, come on...Sitka, Kenai, Tanana & Denahi (cheesy takeoff of Denali)?! Those are real places where real people live! And the real people these real places were named for are probably struggling out of the Earth seeking vengeance over this trite little flick. Disney, you're based out of California & Florida, right amidst the rest of the states that still treat us like a foreign country. If you can't stick to what you know, at least hire and/or work with people who know what area you're trying to caricuture. Maybe then it wouldn't be so insulting! :(",0
"I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling ""What the hell is going on?"" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!",0
"This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age.",1
"Totally un-funny ""jokes"" that fall flat, amateurish acting (with one or two exceptions), boring characters and dialogue that's, at best, mediocre. After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, ""I MUST make this film."" No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release.",0
"Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7"" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named ""Good Night, Irene"" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George ""the Animal"" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray ""the Crippler"" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of.",1
"Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans ""oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!"", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape.",1
"Beloved tale of hero ""Benji"" (""Higgins"" the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day ""Benji"" grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging café owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.  Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only ""Benji"" can save the day.  Plot is routine from writer/producer/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to ""Benji"".  Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for ""Benji's"" theme, ""I Feel Love"".  Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video",0
"This movie is stunningly free from storytelling. It's a pure experience where the music overshadow the visual impression. - Words cannot of course enough express what should be expressed, but it is the requirement of the chattering classes that chatter is put forward, entered into production lines of mediocrity and therefore a necessity in order to express any sensible thought or opinion about something which should not need to be degraded by chatter. Therefore these elaborate opinions are put forward to satisfy those empty minds which need to be filled by noise that you will not find however hard you try in this movie.",1
"I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like Valley Girl another all time classic you will too!",1
"This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim ""They didn't even try"". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!",0
"I gave this film my rare 10 stars.  When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.  This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel ""Nanny"" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.  Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.  In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era.",1
"First of all, before I start my review, I just read every review for 'The Muppet Movie' here and I can't believe that someone could give a negative review to a movie like this. (Fortunately there was only one.) I mean, I can understand how someone may not like 'Star Wars' due to the whole Sci-Fi genre, but to not like a movie starring some of the most lovable puppets in the history of mankind is almost sad.   Okay, I will step off my soapbox now and review this movie.  'The Muppet Movie' came out when I was seven. All of my friends wanted to see this as their birthday movie, so I think I saw it about four times in the first month in theaters.  As a child many things attracted me to this and all the other Muppet movies & TV shows. The singing was probably the main one. Most of the songs in 'The Muppet Movie' are classics. From ""Rainbow Connection"" to ""I'm Going to Go Back There Someday"", they're entertaining and thought-provoking.  As an adult I see 'The Muppet Movie' in almost a whole different light. Yes, the things that thrilled me about it as a kid are still there, but it's the little jokes and such that are just plain hilarious.  I mean, when you think about it, Jim Henson is a sick man.   Kermit is a frog and that is in love with a sweet pig that wears purple gloves and could karate chop you into two pieces. Fozzie is a stand-up comedian bear. Gonzo is a 'whatever' that is infatuated with chickens. Then you have two old guys that heckle, a piano-playing dog, a rock band with a maniac drummer, a Swedish chef that you can't understand and a number of other characters that are just plain eccentric.  Yet, for these reasons and more, Henson has entertained millions of children and adults, giving us all something special to watch and remember him by.   'The Muppet Movie' will always remain in my heart for many reasons, but I think the biggest one is because it's a movie, unlike a lot of recent children's movies, that I feel comfortable to have my kids watch. Plus, I don't get bored out of my mind with jokes that are dumbed down to my kids' level.  It's a great movie that is sure to be remembered forever.",1
"I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title ""Lethal Target"" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a ""Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film"" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.  I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say ""professionals"") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?  I guess I'm just asking for too much.  Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?  I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this ""crap"" than they did.  C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.",0
"LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel ""Nanny"" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it.",1
"When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.  One of the other users commenting on this states ""This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart"". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is ""classic"" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget ""B"" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.  The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.",0
"Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.  But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clichés and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.  It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.  The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!!",0
"Distasteful British film from a Japanese novel about a very troubled young man who comes under the influence of a Hitler-like classmate and plots to harm his widowed mother's lover. A couple of good scenes (Sarah Miles discovering her son has been peeping at her and confronts him in anger, the pasty-faced lad trying to ensnare Kris Kristofferson to his demise by being extra friendly), but what's the point beyond provoking shock? Ugly and uneasy, it doesn't showcase anyone involved to any advantage (especially Kristofferson, whose hollow stares and usual gravelly talk is out-of-place in a psychological mishmash like this one). Coldly without any sense of its own absurdity, director Lewis John Carlino seems to believe a circumstance like this could actually happen. If he's right, that's far more shocking than anything in ""Sailor"". * from ****",0
"""Stripperella"" is an animated series about a girl named Erotica Jones (voiced by Pamela Anderson) who lives a double life as a stripper at a gentleman's club known as ""The Tender Loins"" and as a sexy crime-fighter known as Stripperella, a.k.a. Agent 69 who works for a government organization. As Stripperella, Erotica fights crime and the forces of evil such as a plastic surgeon who gives women breast implants that either explode or make them fat and Cheapo, a criminal who steals from 99 cent stores and makes his two henchmen share a gun. The creator of the character and the series is Stan Lee of Marvel fame (and creator of Spider-Man).  Back in late June of 2003, Spike TV (then known as The New TNN) premiered a Thursday night block of three animated shows. Those shows were ""Ren & Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon""; new adventures of classic kids show characters Ren and Stimpy for adults done by original creator John Kricfalusi, ""Gary the Rat""; about a lawyer who is turned into a human sized rat starring Kelsee Grammar of ""Cheers"" and ""Fraiser"" fame, and ""Stripperella""; the adventures of a stripper who doubles as a superhero voiced by Pamela Anderson and created by Stan Lee. I remember seeing all three of the premiers. I was anxious to see Ren and Stimpy as I love the original show. I was a little let down. It was alright but it seemed to take things a little too far; seeing the two have gay sex together was a bit much. Though Gary the Rat wasn't bad, the best of the three was easily Stripperella. The animation was really good, it had an awesome intro song, it had some good talent behind it, and it was funny as hell! The show was just so silly, I don't even know how to begin explaining it! After four of five weeks (if not a little less) the animation block disappeared, which was weird because I know it got good ratings and it was advertised everywhere. I was disappointed to see Stripperella go but several months later I found out about new episodes that aired at like 1:00 AM. I only got to see one and though it was funny as hell and I was glad to see the show back after all that time, something seemed a bit off....  In the beginning of it's short run, ""Stripperella"" had great animation. It was dark, moody, realistic, and somewhat sexy too. The Stripperella costumed looked good too, the character was drawn well. After the long hiatus and during the rest of the episodes, the animation was very different. Instead of dark and realistic look it originally had everything was now really colorful and cartoonish. Stripperella received the biggest changes though. Before she had normal long hair, now she had hair bigger than Peggy Bundy's (Married with Children) if even possible. Also, the eye mask actually shows her eyes now; before it was just white you saw which was cool since it was more superheroish. Also, the upper part of her costume was kind of a vest-type thing with a collar and her costume was dark blue; that changed to her costume being a bluish-violet color and her upper costume being really crappy looking in comparison. In short, the show was a cartoon and very over the top silly beforehand, but the second-half it became more cartoonish looking and though still laugh-out-loud hilarious, it became more zany as well; for example, there was a later episode about a were-beaver...yes, a were-beaver.   Anyway, instead of complaining about the mid-series changes, ""Stripperella"" only ran one season but it was a very good show. Like the Tales from the Crypt film ""Bordello of Blood"", it may be really campy but it's really fun. As long as your not a prude you'll find yourself laughing repeatedly at this show. I haven't seen every episode because I haven't got the DVD yet for two reasons: #1. Paramount released and they have this screwed up policy about not including any extras on nearly all released TV shows, even though this was the entire show (I would have liked to see some commentary's maby explaining the animation change and interviews with Pamela Anderson and Stan Lee) and #2. the awesome Kid Rock song during the opening was replaced. Now I'm not a fan of his, but that intro sang WAS the theme for the show! If your not going to pay to have any extras at least pay to have the original intro song you jack-asses. The show also had a few interesting guest stars such as John Lovitz as Cheapo and Mark Hamil as the plastic surgion who hates models. Also Tom Kenny (SpongeBob) was on the show as the owner of the strip club in most every episode. Stan Lee has a cameo in one episode too.  The Breakdown:   PROS: Had a great look to it at first, FUNNY AS HELL, a very fun show, great voice talent for the most part, Chief Strogenoff (watch the show and see some of the stuff he does), and was easily the best of the three animated shows mentioned earlier.  CONS: The mid-series animation change and the crappy DVD described earlier. Aside from the fact that some of the humor could be kind of dumb at times I have nothing really negative to say about this.  OVERALL: Stripperella is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and it's a shame it only ran one season. It was a very funny, sexy, actioned packed cult series that I hope to see air on Adult Swim someday with the original intro intact and possibly give it another season like Family Guy. Check it out even if it is on the lousy DVD. You will laugh yourself silly.  Rated TV-MA: Crude and Sexual Humor and Nudity, Runtime: About 25 minutes per episode, Score: 9/10",1
"Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the ""critics love it"" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.  If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.",0
"PDQ Bach did it better. Much of ""Bach""'s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.",0
"This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing.",1
"Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.  After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.  The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.",0
"Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?",0
"""I remember waiting to be born...""   ""Vision quest that was the American West.""   ""We went to a psychic...""   ""I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo""   ""...the place is haunted...""   ""I think there's another dimension right here.""   An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.  What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a ""feeler"" and ""sensing"" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.  Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift.   I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.  By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.  By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices.",0
"Watching ALIEN EXPRESS inspired feelings of awe, shock, pity and, yes, sheer terror. To think that actors who have done good work in the past should come to something like this. The horror, the horror.  Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.  A train especially built for a political campaign is on it's way to Las Vegas for a big rally for the candidate, a Senator from Texas (Barry Corbin, the only actor with roles both ALIEN EXPRESS and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the same decade). At a railroad crossing in Utah a meteor incinerates a car waiting for the train to pass.  The train stops. Local law enforcement is summoned. Oh, can it be? The Senator has a lovely young lady (Amy Locane from CRY-BABY and MELROSE PLACE) who just happened to have once been married to one of the officers answering the 911 call. Lou Diamond Phillips (STAND AND DELIVER, LA BAMBA) is the ex-husband.  Meanwhile eeeeevil aliens have managed to stow away on the train.  The train leaves. Lou gets his buddy to pilot a helicopter so that Lou can drop onto the moving train (about 70 miles per hour) so that he can save the day. As the buddy's reward, he crashes the helicopter into the mountain.  Which is another example of how poorly written ALIEN EXPRESS is. The cop hero's sidekick must die, we all know that. But he's supposed to die near the end of the third act, usually while saving several lives.  Once on the train, Lou manages to lose his shirt so that he can channel Bruce Willis in DIE HARD by wearing a wife beater t-shirt. Yeah, Lou is 46 years old but he hits the gym. The part he's playing isn't worth bothering with, but he's in good shape.  The Senator is going to have an afternoon delight with Miss Utah, but aliens intercede and both he and the woman young enough to be his granddaughter pay the ultimate price.  Soon we have bomb threats, multiplying aliens, and of course the train goes out of control and speeds toward its date with destiny while Lou and Todd Bridges (DIFF'RENT STROKES) try to save as many lives as they can.  There is exactly one surprise in the entire movie. Early in the story a couple lift wine glasses to their thirty-fifth anniversary, with hopes for thirty-five more years together. The dude gets banged up, but he and the Mrs. both live. Maybe the writers just lost track of them.  This is the kind of movie that you'd love to be a fly on the wall. These actors who have done better work (and, really, deserve much better than this) are probably just happy for the work. Did they actually think they were working on something worthwhile, or did they cry (and/or drink) themselves to sleep at night? At the end of the story the (fairly numerous, all things considered) survivors gather in the last car of the train, which is unhooked. The other cars go over a cliff but the one containing the protagonists stops just inches short of the cliff.  Lou and his ex are reunited. Happiness reigns. I'd have thought that the first thing they'd do was get off the train so they'd have solid ground under their feet, but I digress.  Someone looks out the window and sees a shooting star. Look, make a wish. Then another. Then more and more. The Earth is being bombarded with meteors that will crack open and creepy crawly hand puppets with big teeth will be everywhere.  It's gotten to a point that seeing the words ""The Sci-Fi Channel Presents"" on an ""original"" movie tells us that we'll be glad we have Ti-Vo so that we can fast forward through the next two hours. Or, better yet, just go ahead and erase it two minutes into the story and spend that time more wisely.",0
"Bill Rebane's ""The Capture of Bigfoot"" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague.",0
"A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...  1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.  2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.  3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.  4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.  5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.  6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.",0
"Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.  This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.  We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.  But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.  It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.  For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.  When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in.",1
"There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, ""I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..."" Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.",0
"After the wit and liveliness of Highway 61 and Roadkill I expected this movie to shine, but it was as bloated and self-deluded as the hard-rock stars it parodied. The pace dragged, not helped by an over-long hallucination sequence, the characters were flat and unmemorable, and Art Bergmann is no Jello Biafra. I had to poke myself to stay awake.",0
"before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.  the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.  the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.  the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).  live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.  3/10",0
"I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ?",1
"i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.  but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.  yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8/10",1
"with two old friends.  I've always enjoyed both Lemmon's and Mathaeu's films, and of course their team efforts are always worth watching, and often hilarious.  Although I didn't personally regard this film as in the hilarious category, it is certainly a competent and entertaining vehicle for fans of the two principle actors and of 60s style romantic comedy plots.  Brent Spiner may actually steal the show in terms of laughs as the arrogant and tyrannical Cruise Director.  Gloria DeHaven proves that senior ladies can remain enormously attractive.",1
"I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.  This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).  It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.  How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?  Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.",0
"This is one of my all time favourite movies, if ur not into cars then forget it!! This movie features 1 of Aussies greatest muscle cars, the XYGTHO. Yeah so the acting not the greatest - it was never made to win an oscar. The car action will keep you comin back for more and more. There is a cool collection of muscle cars from the 70's and an Awesome '57 Chev - with a real cool cat drivin it! Also there is a really cool song sung by Terry Serio the main actor. The acting is pretty funny when taken lightly, but the tyre smokin and drag racing is the main focus in this movie. Big fast cars with pleantly of steel(NO PLASTIC CARS), and some cool street dragging. I recommend it only to people that are into cars and not someone looking for great acting.",1
"Bled is a very apt title for this As you watch it you will feel your life being bled from you . The cliché in horrors is about people doing exactly what they shouldn't ( going down into the basement or going up into the attic) Then the trouble ensues Take heed then DON'T watch this film .Show the brains that victims in horror movies never do Stay clear Do not enter .And if you need anymore incentive This film? is as bad as the worst Uwe Boll film I mean ,The house of the dead bad. I have often thought about entering a review of a film on I.M.D.B. and ,after watching some based on the comments herein ,I discovered I guess everyone's entiled to his/her opinion. Please trust me on mine",0
"We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions, ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere.  The story is about two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an 'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost that is far from helping the girls' recovery...  This film is amazing. It has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of movie fan! An easy 10/10.",1
"The scientist Charles and his wife (or assistant) Marissa receive some objects and a skull from an ancient Indian cemetery, and while cleaning a vase, they are attacked and murdered by a mysterious being, the Skeleton Man. Then, a military squad commanded by Captain Leary (Michael Rooker) seeks out two groups of four soldiers each that vanished in the jungle. They face the Skeleton Man, shooting him while he kills each soldier. Then the Skeleton Man goes to a power plant, and Captain Leary explodes the facility destroying the supernatural being.  I bought ""Skeleton Man"" on DVD expecting to see a funny trash, but I found an awfully boring, annoying and senseless crap, with shoots and explosions. The imbecile story is totally disconnected and does not make any sense, and the military team is composed of imbeciles, insisting in shooting the supernatural Skeleton Man until they are totally slaughtered. Their leader is also the most stupid, with the blow-up of an entire facility in the end to destroy the supernatural rip-off of the extraterrestrial warrior Predator. On DVD, it is possible to use the fast forward button along the movie and reduce the suffering of the viewer. My vote is two.  Title (Brazil): ""Skeleton Man""",0
"But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, ""It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie."" or ""We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel"" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.",0
"The Polar Express. Director Robert Zemeckis, I love Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Contact, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (NO QUESTION MARK AFTER THAT MOVIE TITLE!!). And Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. The reviews of this movie were almost unanimous saying that this is an instant holiday classic. Ebert & Roeper give it two ENTHUSIASTIC thumbs up! Even Ebert's written review gave it a full four stars! Wow... OK... this I gotta see! But wait... the motion capture used looks really weird. Hmm... maybe I'm NOT so interested in seeing this anymore.  ""Well, you comin?"" says the train conductor to the boy in The Polar Express. The boy is reluctant at first, and the train begins on its course without him. The boy soon changes his mind and jumps aboard just in the nick of time.   Now, most of you have probably decided to not jump aboard this train and wait for the TV Train or Rental Express (hee hee, I'm so witty and clever). I, on the other hand was like the boy who was skeptical at first, but jumped on to see what the fuss was all about.   I just wasted $10 and two hours of my life.   I can't even begin to explain the pain in my stomach. The Polar Express was so painful to sit through it's not even funny. There's no story. There's no pay off. You sit there through these series of events and you wonder ""is there any point to all this?"" It'd be one thing if the scenes were entertaining... but they're not.  This movie is void of any emotion, any soul, any ounce of plausibility, and most of all: any fun. This movie is NOT FUN.   And let's talk about the way these characters look for a second. Saying that it's the same technology (motion, I'm sorry, ""PERFORMANCE"" capture) used to make Gollum is a real shame because Gollum was Believable!!! Photo-realism just does not translate well in this medium. You're using animation, why not design the characters to be more expressive? Or why not just film it all with real actors? They certainly COULD have. We as people know all too well how we walk, talk, interact with things. Seeing it on the screen done unconvincingly is not impressive. Caricatures done convincingly is all the more believable, as The Incredibles has proved. The result of The Polar Express now is as if they took corpses of dead children and turned them into puppets. They're moving and talking, but where's the heart? Where's the soul? That's what we're seeing on the screen. UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH! This movie is so horrible!   There's a scene early in the movie where the boy takes a girl's train ticket from her seat because she got up and left it. He wants to give it to her but you sit there going ""why??!"" Just leave it.. she's coming back! He of course loses the ticket and ""adventure"" ensues. And then there's a boy who's stuck in the back of the train all the time, and they bring him hot chocolate, but he can't come up and join the rest of the kids? And then there's this annoying ""know it all"" kid with the voice of a 35 year old. It's all so very disturbing.   Oh and there's songs! One girl goes into the back of the train where the lonely kid is. He's singing a song to himself. And then she interrupts and joins in! They end the song as they're holding hands, looking into each others eyes as if they were lovers. Very awkward. I won't even go into details about the song about serving hot chocolate while waiters dance around the train. ""keep it hot keep it hot!"" The one scene where Tom Hanks slides on his knees with his arms stretched up in the air has to be one of the most memorably BAD scenes in the history of bad scenes.   I have to stop now or I'll just kill myself. I need to watch something crappy to cleanse the palette. Yes... crappy is better than The Polar Express.   ""The one thing about trains, it doesn't matter where you're going, what matters is deciding to get on.""  Don't get on this one. For the love of God, I have decided for you! This is just another film taken from a children's book stretched incredibly thin into movie form. It happened with the Grinch and The Cat in the Hat and those were horrible also. But who can blame them? I bet if I took the book, The Berenstein Bears' Too Much Junk Food, and turned that into a feature film, it'd probably be pretty dull also. But at least... there'd be a story and a point, which is what The Polar Express is so lacking of.",0
"Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still ""Hot"" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few ""jumps"" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.",1
"""Committed"", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.  One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as ""chit-chique poetry""). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or ""auteured"") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a ""spiritually superior"" people, which is the ""highlight"" of this film's political correctness.  The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic ""actor""; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed ""Werewolf""; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.",0
"The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays ""Muka Laka Miki"" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie.   She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.  Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.  So don't say I didn't warn you...",0
"This documentary focuses on the happenings in Gothenburg 2001. In swedish media the demonstrators where pictured as criminals that stood for anarchy and violence. This movie shows that there not, actually they are intelligent, articulate people that has something to say - And says it by the force of bricks. They believe in a better world, a world where people can think and say what they want - without being aimed at. But are their beliefs of having the possibility of changing the society realistic? I think not.  This documentary gives us enlightenment in the issues of greed, capitalism and the future it might bring. It is a great documentary that is not propaganda, because it is not shown as what they say is right. Everything it shows is what some individuals think and it is up to the viewer to decide if what they do and stand for is right or wrong.  I have heard many people that labels this a propaganda and therefor chooses not to view it, I think they are making a bad decision because even if you sympathize with the police or the demonstrators belief, all you get is more facts to rely on, for example the kid that got shoot says that he thinks that it is good to throw a brick through a McDonalds window because it is the step between thinking and acting as you think.  Overall this movie freaked me out because you cannot really dismiss the facts that the few policemen, that fought violence with violence, did not get convicted or even detained in custody even however the proof of them throwing bricks at the demonstration march (and in some cases beating people with truncheon, even though they are lying on the street without making resistance) where as good as it gets.  Rating: 8/10 - Very good, but not best!",1
"I shall begin with a disclaimer: This movie is NOT recommended for anyone who lack interest or have never played FF7 the game before watching. The movie relies on the audience's knowledge of each character in the game to convey story plot elements. And it does so very subtly. Do your homework before watching this wonderful piece of CG film and I promise it'll be that much better.  With that in mind, this film has some of the most spectacular CG sequences I have ever witnessed. The whole experience felt like an extra long FMV sequence from the game, on steroids. Yeah. The attention to detail in each scene, especially in the heavy action oriented ones, is so impeccable it left me with a sense of awe.  I believe the soundtrack is simplified so as to help the audience focus on the animation quality more than the music. Again, for those who are familiar with the FF7 story and background, the music should not surprise anyone (although the timing and placement of each soundtrack from the original accompany each scene and mood to the point where the music simply enhances the animation).  Once again, I myself having only played through FF7 once, thoroughly enjoyed this piece of art from Square Enix. And that is the feel in most scenes, choreographed and organized. Like a dance.  In short, if you enjoyed the music or the game Final Fantasy 7, this film will blow you out of the water. If you're in the unfortunate majority who has not experienced the goodness known as FF7 on Playstation or PC, doing so before watching the movie will allow for an exponentially greater experience.  Finally, I just want to make a note of the quality in animating this film. Characters move with fluidity. Each scene background comes to life and tells its own story. For those who criticize the thinness and dependency of the story plot, I urge you to reexamine the animation. Facial reactions, subtle clues that bring about another level of entertainment above the typical narration method of story plot delivery.  Square Enix and the great Tetsuya Nomura has set a new bar for quality animation and storytelling. Advent Children has ushered in a new era for CG animations, allowing the subtleties that lie in each character to speak volumes in and of themselves.  Thanks Square Enix. The wait was well worth it.",1
"Back in the 70's, a small-time Texas filmmaker named S.F. Brownrigg directed a handful of surprisingly decent low-budget drive-in horror flicks which seem to have developed a small cult following over the years. Before viewing his first film, Don't Look In The Basement, I wasn't too sure what to expect, but I sure as hell didn't expect it to turn out to be the only Texas horror I thought was better than the Chainsaw Massacre. I don't know, this might actually be my all-time favorite horror movie.  We begin in an isolated insane asylum. At first, it seems like a rather laid-back place to get mentally healthy, considering all the patients are allowed to roam around freely and whatnot, as if it were their house (I guess it is). none of them seem all that dangerous, only delusional. The residents include a love-nympho, a 700 year old woman, a man-child, a spaz, a guy who thinks he's in a war, a woman who thinks she has a baby, and a guy who thinks he's a judge. One day, out of nowhere, Judge kills the doctor with an axe, shortly thereafter, the wanna-be baby mama kills the nurse. Ten minutes into the movie, and things are looking really ugly. Perhaps the new nurse will know what to do, then again, perhaps not. Giving away more would do more harm than good. It's best to plunge head first into this one, knowing as little as possible. If you can appreciate honest-to-God, untampered with horror, then you will not be disappointed.   If you liked Scream, if you liked Wrong Turn, if you go for that unoriginal, over-produced, over-scored digital Hollywood garbage, then chances are high you just wont see the beauty in this one. Don't Look In The Basement, being a first attempt makes the quality all the more shocking. The atmosphere and the graininess fit into the location and the score like a glove. Unfortunately, good ol' S.F. used up most of his good ideas on his first movie, although, the next entry in his Texas-sized quadrilogy, is somewhat of a masterpiece, that is, if you're into extra sleazy, mean-spirited, Hixploitation like someone I know. If you fall in love with Brownrigg's first two, and absolutely must find out what else he had to offer, check out Don't Open The Door, and The House Where Hell Froze Over. Don't Look in The Basement has everything that successful horror needs, no stars, no budget, no digital effects, just an original story brought to life in an insane asylum, with a dozen cast members, and a somber, subtle score, and of course, the twist. This is real horror for the real horror fan. 10/10",1
"I would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.",0
"This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:  ""quirky"" and obnoxious characters (a few); ""quirky"" town with ""quirky"" folk; a ""quirky"" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of ""gotta get out of this town""; downright booooring.  And it succeeds on all counts.  Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure ""quirky"" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?  Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.",0
"So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...  This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!  If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!  But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.  Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!  so.. deal for yourself! good luck",0
"This movie was on the pay channels today and I had nothing to do so I had it on. This has to be the worst football movie ever made. This has to be one of the worst movies period. The premium service on the cable system has a rating system, and they gave 2 stars out of 4. This movie isn't even a half a star. Bad acting, Scott Bakula sinks as usual, Larry Miller?? Sinbad, couldn't act if he tried. Rob Schneider's one liners completely stunk. Fred Thompson should be embarrassed that he was even in this movie. The only saving grace for this movie was the hope you would see Kathy Ireland nude in the shower, not even close. A complete waste of time and of film. If we could give a negative number, minus 9.",0
"I really like Traci Lords. She may not be the greatest actress in the world but she's rather good in this. She play the dowdy, conservative, reporter to a 'T'. It's a great little thriller which keeps you guessing for a good while. Jeff Fahey is also good as Traci's boss. I think given a decent break Traci could be a top actress. She's certainly no worse than some of today's leading ladies.",1
"In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of camera work and storytelling down pat.  The Merchant of Four Seasons is one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought).  His camera work was getting there too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann.  Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior.",1
"I have read all of Jane Austen's novels right the way through once a year every year since I was 9 years old and received the Modern Library edition of her collected works as a birthday present.   I loved this movie for its romance and for the music, which stayed, hauntingly, in my head. It was an interpretation of course, not an Emma or a Sense and Sensibility, but something quite different and something Catherine herself would have loved. And oh to be loved by this passionate Henry! This was the Henry of Catherine's imagination, and she is the romantic heroine she read about in her novels, and which was promised to us by the practical Jane Austen who tells us right at the beginning that the unlikely Catherine will indeed be one. I wonder if Jane was being entirely satirical in her novel. Perhaps, she too, could imagine such a Henry.   I haven't seen the film in many years, at least a decade. But, I have been yearning for it ever since.",1
"The rise of punk music was scarcely documented on film and most people tend to focus on the happenings of other cities such as London or New York. Penelope Spheeris managed to preserve a snapshot of Los Angeles circa '79-'81 which proves a vibrant and diverse art/music community had spawned which rivalled any other. To some, the bands read like a who's who of now legendary American punk; Black Flag, X, Circle Jerks, Germs, Fear. Purists argue that vital bands were missed (Weirdos, Zeros, Flesheaters) and that the movie was the cause of an onslaught of suburban poseurs and macho violence. However, the issues touched upon in the film remain relevant, the intensity of the music remains unmatched and the influence continues to be seen and heard in the cliques/fashions of today.",1
"My girlfriend and I are really into cheesy horror flicks. Especially ones with lots of unnecessary nudity. When we saw the box cover for this movie at blockbuster we thought it would be a perfect movie for the night. We began watching it, already not expecting it to be GREAT, but thought it would at least catch our interest. 20 minutes into the movie we realized that the pace would not eventually pick up and that it was an incredibly boring movie. We tried to get into it, but the plot made very little sense even after reading the back of the DVD box over and over again. The film was shot very dark and it was pretty annoying to try to figure out what was going on in each shot. Each violent scenes were very hard to make out, and you never get to actually watch the violence you're expecting. This is definitely a film without motive that was shot poorly and very drawn out. Each scene was about 20 minute of the same thing and I felt I got the point after the first 5. Skip this film and re-watch another Freddy or Jason flick and you'll be way more content.",0
"Wow this really is stereotypical, terrible trash. i feel sorry for anyone who may have wasted their money to see this.  i am pretty sure i did not laugh once during this whole movie, i just cannot believe they would make such a terrible movie.  i will now be more wary when i watch late night movies.  this is most definitely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i am not saying it is the worst movie in existence (though it could be), but i don't think i have seen anything so stupid and unfunny it my life. it makes the Scary Movie series look intelligent.  1/10 i'd give it a 0 if they would let me",0
"There are few films that deal with things that I would consider myself an expert on, this one is.  After some years of Fantasy Role Playing we split, me not leaving without a sense of shame of what I had become: a dork.  You see, these things are really canonical, it happens to everybody.  First you create a character fairly and it dies after the first attack.  Then you help a little with the constitution, and while you're at it, why not help with strength, intelligence, intuition, charisma and dexterity too? This in turn frustrates the game master who doesn't know how to deal with this invincible gang. And after a while it bores the players too, so they start to create ever more exotic race-profession combinations, no matter how ludicrous it is.  I created a Druedain warrior monk, yeah, not that far from the film.  And that's not all to be said about the destructiveness of the inherent dynamic of this devilish game (think the hunt for experience points), but just watch the film, it shows it all - and of course the stupidity of its most basic premisses.  For this end, in turn, there is no better profession than the bard. I don't exactly understand why the bard became a character in the first place, after all, the blacksmith is none. But once it became one, it had to be mapped into the game flow, that is: it had to be made lethal, at least indirectly. The poking of fun out of this never comes to an end and rightfully so.  Sure, it's not exactly a professional production, but I haven't seen a better satire in ages.",1
"Both the book and the film are excellent in their own right. They do differ slightly but that enhances and not detracts from what is an excellent script and acting. The historical atmosphere, the young girl looking for love, the amazing background of music hall and the voyage into the lesbian world of London early twentieth century make this an exceptional movie. Andrew Davies as the scriptwriter excels himself as he writes this lesbian love story with such sensitivity. Rachael Sterling and Keeley Hawes are both excellent actresses and give these parts their best. The rest of the cast are very good. If there was higher than 10 out of 10 I would give it!",1
"Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.  Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.  The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).  The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]",0
"This was one of the best movies you could find as a child. I lived with The Chipmunk Adventure from 4 years old to 8 years old. The story of this film was: Dave's going on a business trip to Europe and sticks the boys with Miss Miller. While playing an Around the World in 80 Days video game, two villains, Klaus and Claudia (brother and sister), round the Chipmunks and Chipettes into an adventure in which the kids must hot-air-balloon their way across the globe. What they're unaware of is that the ""game"" is really a diamond-smuggling ring. And when found at the airport by the villains, a chase ensues! And which ends in Klaus and Claudia off to jail and Alvin, Simon, Theodore, Brittany, Jeanette, and Eleanor safe with Dave and Miss Miller. But I am warning you now, this is a musical and quite a damn good one at that. Most people hate musicals, but I am not one of those people, I frigging love musicals like Rocky Horror, Grease, Sound of Music, Cats Don't Dance, and just about anything (except for My Fair Lady). If you see this, share with your kids (if you got any)!",1
"The subject matter of this film is potentially depressing: a man about thirty, with no job, little education, three kids from a failed relationship, living in his parents' house, but with a dream of directing feature films. But about a half-hour into the movie you realize that Mark Borchardt has a bottomless supply of drive and ambition--it's just that it's all channeled into his need to direct movies, and nothing else will make him happy. The movie jumps all over the emotional spectrum, but in the end you come away feeling happy, because you've just gotten to know some wonderful people. Go to see this--you'll end up wishing it was longer.",1
"Yeah, what did I expect? I thought this would be a film about young adults at their turning-point in life, something like ""Sonnenallee"" or ""American Pie"", which I liked a lot. I wanted to see a funny film, perhaps with an ironic look on idyllic Wuerzburg. And what did I get?  Attention, spoilers ahead!  This film starts with a lengthy dialogue which gives you a good hint of what will inevitably follow: more lengthy dialogues. Sometimes I thought Moritz Bleibtreu might have forgotten his text and trying to hide that fact by improvising and just repeating what he was saying before. But as I think of Bleibtreu as one of the better german actors, I believe that this effect really was intended. I think the author wanted to show how boring talking to close friends can be - especially when they are stoned. But really, I don't need cinema to be bored by stoned friends' talk. Boring dialogues make up most of this film.  But okay, that's one thing. I can cope with that, I have seen nice films with abominable dialogues, just think of Schwarzenegger's life's work. But the next thing is that characters are cheap and flat and that the storyline is as foreseeable as anything. Just one example (SPOILER!!): Why, do you think, does someone take a garden hose to his hemp-plants deep in the forest? To water them? Of course not, usually you don't find water-pipes deep in forests, do you? The only reason this water-hose is there is that a hunter who happens to come by while the two protagonists are harvesting their dope can be drugged, maltreated and finally filled up with three bottles of Jaegermeister. I truly hated this scene, because it's really violent. Usually, I don't mind violence in films - slapstick-comedies are full of it. But in that sort of comedy there is a silent agreement between the film and you that people don't get hurt if they fall on their faces or get beaten with chairs or things like that. But if that happens in a film which is otherwise realistic enough, slapstick-scenes also seem real. In this particular scene in ""Lammbock"" I really thought that this hunter must be badly injured, if not dead - the final scene really invoked in me the impression that he is left to die there, totally filled up with more booze anyone could handle. And the protagonists just walk away. It would have been otherwise if the author had consistently followed one style; the scene could have been quite funny.  Talking about being consistently - that's what I missed most about this film. The whole film seems to be a listing of small episodes that came to the author's mind. Things just happen without a apparent reason - yeah, I know, that's life, but that's not cinema, because cinema is meant to tell a story, not to show boring episodes without any significance. I found myself asking ""Where's the point?"" all the time. Characters besides the two main ones are not elaborated, you never get to know why the protagonist's sister wants to sleep with his best friend Kai, in fact, she tells you but I could not buy it, not at all. I think she just was there to give Kai an opportunity to act this childish AIDS-test sketch, which you sure have seen a thousand times before, and mostly better. The protagonist's girlfriend you meet once, then she leaves Germany (what you don't even see and the guy doesn't seem to care) and finally it is mentioned in one sentence that she has met someone else in America and splits up with the protagonist. It seemed to me that the author wanted to tie up a few loose ends. He actually didn't, you never really get to know what's so bad about studying law, being daddy's son (daddy fixes everything in the end and serves coffee in the middle of the night, which to my mind made him one of the nicer characters in the whole film) and living in beautiful Wuerzburg. Even the dinner with daddy's layer-friend, which maybe was intended to show how horrible it is to have to live up to dad's expectations, seemed flat, just another nice dinner with the family's friends (except for the trip the guy is on later, but I think showing that eating dope before you dine with parents isn't healthy was not the point of this scene, if there was any). I have experienced far worse dinners in my life than this one and still finished my exams. I couldn't understand one single character in the whole film, they just seemed flat and implausible.  All this made it a not-so-good film, but not one I wouldn't watch again on television. It really had a few good scenes (most of them were not new, though, like the one with the nice and understanding policemen), some were really funny, some dialogues were nice and I like Bleibtreu's play, although he repeated his well-known stereotypes again this time. Not good, not abominable, that's what I thought after the film was half over.  But then came this incest scene and this I really found repulsive. Incest simply isn't funny. I don't even know if this was intended to be funny, some people in the audience laughed, so it could have been meant this way. This scene spoiled the whole film for me, I couldn't feel sympathy for the protagonist any more - I can't feel sympathy for anyone who f**** a helpless person, to me, this is rape and rape isn't funny. So it might have been a hint of drama or so, but the incest is never again mentioned (although we thought this could have been one reason for the protagonist to leave Germany in the end, but as it is never mentioned again, we don't know.), it is even totally unnecessary. I almost expected the sister to become pregnant in the end, which would just have added the finishing touch to this tasteless story, but not even this final cliche is fulfilled, just as nothing is really solved or thought through to the end in this film. It isn't really funny, it isn't really a drama, it isn't at all a road movie a la Tarantino despite desperate tries on violence, it is definitely not enjoyable.  Skip this film. Watch ""Final Fantasy"", that's also bad, but at least with beautiful pictures and not that tasteless.",0
"Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies ""hottie"" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.  If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!",0
"I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies (I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same.",1
"sorry, sorry but sorry. nice, very nice production, very nice actors, also funny. But, this type of the movies with a dog (Rex German, Gery-Jerry American) with a private detectives, with a pretty rich woman???????????????????????? Hello producer, how many movies we have out there with the same plot?????????? What do u have on your minds when you make the scenes like dog having a pupu. Or any king of that dog activities????? Micro chips who can make you rich? Micro chips who wort a fortune? There is three master chips, wow? And the creator of the chips can't make the same chips again? Hello, wake up. can give us something smarter than that? Best, D",0
"This movie is the best one forever upon the warm feelings of this real love story during the Korean war by the story of Hy sun the Eurasian doctor and Mark Elliot an American corespondent at the shadow of different habits between east and west upon his quotation in the love scene between two lovers when he invited her to dance (The relationship between east and west must be close) in spite of Chinese habits and customs that destiny made their great role by appointing between them to replace the pains for both (Elliot suffered from failure marriage ) and (Hy sun suffered from the harmful shoot of her husband by Chinese communists at the time of Mao Ze dung in 1949).  She could not stop the decision of destiny in spite of her practical profile because love has a magnetic spirit for everyone seek for happiness , soul and brilliant memory as the final quotation by the voice of Elliot after his death and the sadness receive for Hy Sun for this hard situations when she went to the hill the source of this love under the tree to say goodbye for his body and live with his soul among their souvenirs.",1
"Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a ""maverick"" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.  Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this ""B"" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.  Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars.   However, the acting is good.   Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a good job!  Moral of the story: Don't get your ""Don"" upset with you.  If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store.",1
"With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?",0
"I hate to say I enjoyed this movie as the subject matter does not lend itself to enjoyment. However, I was moved by the way the family relationships were portrayed and the sincerity of the performances. It was the kind of film I told all my friends and family to experience as a reminder of how important we all are to each other.",1
"One of the genres that flourished during the decade of the 30s was the variation of crime fiction known as ""the murder mystery"", as the addition of sound to films helped to make a more faithful translation to film of what the audiences experienced in the original plays. And since horror films were very popular in those years, by enhancing the horror elements of the plots the murder mystery films experienced a popularity almost equal to what it enjoyed in the previous decade (in which the first movies of the genre were produced). Aspiring playwright Charles Belden saw in this renewed interest in murder mysteries a chance to make a name for himself, after Warner Bros. picked his three-act play, ""The Wax Works"", to create the 1933 horror film, ""Mystery of the Wax Museum"". Belden joined independent filmmaker Frank R. Strayer to keep making films, and ""The Ghost Walks"" was one of his best.  In ""The Ghost Walks"", John Miljan plays Prescott Ames, a young playwright who wants to impress a famous Broadway producer named Herman Wood (Richard Carle) with his new play. Ames takes Wood and his assistant Homer (Johnny Arthur) to his country house for a reading of his play, but his car ends up stuck in the mud during a terrible storm. The three men ask for refugee in an old Mansion which happens to be property of one of Ames' old acquaintances. Inside the house, Wood and Homer witnesses the strange relationship between Ames and the house owners, however, this is all a plan conceived to impress Wood: everyone in the house is an actor playing a role in his murder mystery. Unfortunately, the murder committed is done for real, and while Wood and Homer think it's all fake (after discovering Ames' original plan), the cast knows that someone inside the house is a real murderer.  As expected, Charles Belden's screenplay for ""The Ghost Walks"" features the classic elements of the murder mystery stories of its time, as we have the stormy night at an old dark house as setting, the obligatory group of suspects, and the touch of comedy. However, what's interesting here is how Belden makes the film a real spoof on the genre with the many twists he puts in his story to play with the clichés of murder mystery plays. The dialogs are excellent, full of wit and lighthearted charm, and while the plot certainly loses a lot of steam by the end (it follows the murder mystery routine anyways), it never fails to be interesting and entertaining thanks to its smart twists and specially its quirky characters. Interestingly, there's an obvious gay subtext that while stereotypical, it's never denigrating and it's genuinely funny at times.  By 1934 director Frank R. Strayer was already an experienced craftsman in the Poverty row side of the film industry, but his partnership with writer Charles Belden would give him a couple of his most interesting movies, and ""The Ghost Walks"" was one of them. While obviously done on a shoestring budget and the typical production values of independent films of its time, Strayer manages to take advantage of his set and makes an atmospheric movie that fits nicely the mood and tone of the story. The pacing is a little too slow at times, but Strayer knew that the power of his film was on Belden's script and makes the most of it, letting his cast to make the most of their characters with excellent results. Certainly the execution is a bit typical and unoriginal, but Strayer makes an effective albeit restrained work in this film.  As written above, the screenplay is filled with great lines that make the quirky characters shine, and fortunately, most of the cast play with this to their advantage. Veteran character actor Richard Carle is remarkably funny as cranky producer Herman Wood, adding a lot of charm to his character, specially in his scenes with Johnny Arthur, who plays the flamboyant secretary Homer. Arthur is the one who gets the most best scenes, and he gives and hilarious performance as the cowardly yet witty assistant. John Miljan is just effective as Presocott Ames, nothing amazing, but nothing really bad, and the same could be said about June Collyer as Gloria Shaw (the obligatory love interest), whom is just fine. However, Donald Kirke is really enjoyable as the malicious Terry Shaw, and it's a shame he didn't get more screen time.  As usual with Frank R. Strayer films, the low budget hurts the film badly, as while Strayer makes the best he can, the film still feels kind of plain at times. However, the main problem is problem the very slow pace it has, as even when the film is filled with sparkly moments of witty dialogs, it moves at a pace so slow that can become boring and tedious for moments. It also must be said that while effective in their roles, Miljan and Collyer are pretty dull and average when compared to Arthur and Carle, and one wishes the movie had been more focused on the comedic pair they make than on the main couple. Finally, as written above the ending is kind of weak and not up to the high standard of the first and middle parts, although credit must go to Belden for keeping creative plot twists appearing until the very end.  One could say that Charles Belden is an unsung hero of the murder mystery genre, as among the many horror and mystery films that came out the B movie studios nicknamed as ""the Poverty Row"", ""The Ghost Walks"" is easily among the best (alongisde Strayer's previous film, ""The Vmapire Bat"") despite its shortcomings. And even when it's definitely not a masterpiece of the genre, it's a nice way to spend a night enjoying the way it pokes fun at its own origin as a murder mystery play. A very recommended film if you like the genre. 7/10",1
"All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.  Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.  2/10",0
"In an industry dominated by men and in lack of products with a female mark on it ; is it always nice to see a film shown from the woman's point of view. I would welcome more films from female writers and directors , and I think lots of other women with me.",1
"This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called ""Straight A's."" However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible.",0
"How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.",0
"...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. ""Scratch"" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate ""Scratchers"" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B)",1
"Soon after this movie was released,Salman Khan was handed over a 6 Year Imprisonment.(Read further to know why am i mentioning this.)  And i heaved a sigh of relief.Not that i was happy that he got jail for something which because he was a celeb but i was happy cus this meant No more Salman Khan movies,no more his histrionics and no more over hyped Acting(read Overacting).  This movie made no sense whatsoever.   The scene where the kid belonging to one of the family makes a rocket which was voice activated .According to the movie script it would chase anyone.But ultimately it finds only Salman Khan Bare Chested. Well this is what happened.  The Rocked gets activated in another foolish way and you have to have an IQ of .001 to believe that. Then it chases Salman Khan ,who was on his water scooter and the chase continues unless he is done with all the possible stunts he could show to foolish audience. (In my regard all those people who have given this movie 5 and above ,unless they are paid to do that.)  Another of breath taking ,unbelievable scene was at the end when all the arrangements about the marriage is made and Salman Khan with Govinda in Disguise comes and stall the marriage by another of those highly unwanted songs .Later on even though everything is done and ready a mere confession of govinda and Katrina Kaif to katrina's Father and Bingo . Everything is fine and Govinda marries Kartina....  This made me wonder if convincing was so easy why did not they do that and tortured us for so many hours and wasted my Money.  This movie is must avoid and don't even think it had any scene worth watching . The plot is way too disconnected with characters popping from no where and ultimately vanishing..for ex Choota don...What a waste of characters.  After this movie i took a pledge that i would not watch Salman khan Movies for the rest of my life unless it wins an Oskar...(hahahah...which means i would never watch)",0
"Well to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!",0
"This is, without a doubt, one of the most accomplished debut films for any director. The Movie is only 90 minutes long, but manages to say just about everything about life and death. Not much action, and dialogue is minimal, but the movie flows perfectly and demands your attention due to the wonderfully natural feel of everything going on. The performances by the leads are perfection, and even some supporting characters get strong emotional scenes. The movie will be somewhat lost on today's modern audience, but this is one that everyone ought to see.Refreshingly unsentimental and honest, this is on par with Ozu's works.   Scratch my title, this one is perfect!",1
"WARNING: SPOILER,SPOILER,SPOILER!!!!  This is written for filmgoers who may have walked away from ""Mood for Love"" perplexed and confused about paths the main characters choose in life. From reading other comments and reviews it seems that many viewers and critics missed some very important details which may have prevented them from enjoying this delightful tease of a movie.  We are so use to seeing blatant SEX in narrations that we forget that there was a time when filmakers would suggest the ""dirty deed"" by simply showing the slack-mouthed couples ride off in a sleigh or haywagon only to return into the next scene with a bulging gut or a fat toddler stuck to the hip...""Meet your child"".  The director chose the same nostalgic approach in telling the story of Mr Chow and Mrs Chan. Last warning...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER  Mr Chow fools Mrs Chan into showing her real emotions when they rehearse his departure forever. Next scene: Mrs Chan leans her head on Mr Chow in the taxi and says ""I do not want to go home tonight"". Translation: ""Let's Do It""  Why then did the couple just not do the modern thing of dumping their cheating spouses,get a divorce,raise their love child and live happily ever after? The answer is that this whole story takes place in Hong Kong during the Sixties. A bastard would live in a bleak life of shame if he were the child of an adulteress;whereas,a ""legitimate"" child could live a tragic but noble/honest life if his mother chose to raise him away from his cheating ""father""-the invisible Mr Chan. In short,Mr Chow and Mrs Chan sacrifices their relationship for the future of their child.  That is why Mr Chow,upon learning that Mrs Chan lives alone with a little boy gives a knowing smile and ends his dreams of making Mrs Chan his Mrs Chow. He then,also realizes why Mrs Chan went to all the way to Singapore to be with him,only to reconsiders at the last momment and leave..,choosing to never see him again.(But not before taking some unnamed keepsake) Mr Chow lives with this wonderful secret with no one to tell. No one,except for a crumbling temple wall and of course we the viewer,...but only if we listen carefuly.",1
"The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.  I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.  But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.  It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.  By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous.",0
"I've recently seen An zhan. Not because it was a Hong Kong film, but because I was looking for a change from the films being produced here in the US. In my humble opinion, I believe the film could easily compete against the action thrillers being produced here, except for the traditional idiocyncracies of Hong Kong film. The one that still bothers me was the chief inspector character. I still don't understand why there has to be a complete-idiot-comic-relief-type character even in the serious films that come out of Hong Kong, but I can live with it when the movie is this good. The characters are believable even if the situations they are in are not. The story is fast paced and really sucks you in to it. The real cincher scenes for me were the two bus rides that the thief character takes. Overall, a really solid film.",1
"absolutely nothing about this movie is funny, interesting, or relevant. besides two characters getting together at the end, nothing is ever resolved, and there is no plot. and by the way, what is the deal with the cover of the dvd? it has a female ass in daisy duke shorts... where was that scene in the movie? no one ever wore daisy dukes in this film! surprisingly enough, almost all of the acting in this film is good, and jack black plays a full song (could be a tenacious d track... don't know though)... those are the only redeeming values, though. overall, it's just a waste of time.",0
"If you've ever seen Open Water , this is the same kind of gritty, edgy, indie style of film. i liked the action, suspense. the slow building of it all,, i just hope they don't do to this one what they did to Open Water, with that sequel.. but anyways,, the one thing i didn't like was the annoying younger sister,, i was rooting for the croc the whole time.. film starts out pretty much like it should,, kids packing up for a trip,, they hire a guide who mysteriously left 5 mins. before they got there,, so i guess his assistant takes the two sisters,, and the boyfriend out on the water , now mind you this is the second day of their adventure,, curiously enough the first day they spent at guess ,, hmm a crocodile farm.. so they are out there and all is good for a little while,, then bang,, crocodile time... very intense,, you know something in this movie you don't see the crocodile, a whole heck of a lot,, but when you do,, gosh it is very scary,, i love the croc's snout and eyes,, and the shroud of fog that seems to enshroud the croc every time he raises his head above the water,, very very creepy, but good,, overall this is a great film,, if you can get past the annoying little sister.",1
"THE QUICKIE (1 outta 5 stars)  Pretty poor movie... an old-as-the-hills story about a high-ranking gangster who wants to quit, passing on his empire to his inept son. Of course, it's not going to be easy for someone in that line or work to just quit... so a contract is put out on his life. After throwing a big party an exterminator (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I guess is *never* going to act in anything other than TV movies or low budget direct-to-video trash ever again) is called to the scene. Our ""hero"" makes a pass at her... offering her big money for a ""quickie""... she turns down his offer, even though she needs the money... but winds up staying overnight anyway... even after being brutally harassed by the overzealous son who thinks she was sent to kill his father. Ugh. The story just goes on and on... you can see every ""twist"" and ""turn"" coming a mile away. Weird soundtrack by some group called ""The Tiger Lillies"" will drive most people nuts... but I thought there was one kind of cool track towards the end. Or maybe I was just excited because I could tell that the movie was almost over? Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... what the hell happened to you?",0
"My companions were astounded to find that this movie was a documentary. It was so funny, it seemed scripted, yet it gives a stirring picture of real life in the indie film life. We felt moved to purchase Coven and wanted to meet Mark and Mike. As college students, this film gave us a much needed glimpse of real life.",1
"Where the heck is Andreas(Trond Fausa Aurvaag), exactly? Heaven? Hell? A parallel universe? When the bothersome man steps off the subway platform and meets an onrushing train, his next conscious moment occurs on a bus; riding solo, the newest arrival, in a dead netherworld where all the suicides go. Dressed as he was at the time of his sudden departure from the corporeal biosphere, Andreas is greeted by an official man, who processes and transports the bothersome man from the barren flatlands to a city, if the eyeballs work, is a dead ringer for the sort of urban landscapes that he once inhabited, if memory serves him right. Andreas retains the look of a sleepwalker in a trance, a man estranged from people and objects, struggling to find his bearings; at home, or rather, his assigned apartment; or at work, where the bothersome man is randomly designated as an accountant for an independent contractor. Havard(Johannes Joner), his boss, tells him, ""You'll get used to it,"" which covers more than just crunching numbers, we suspect, in this world, same as the old world.  If life is meaningless, like French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre said, the same can be said for death, as well. The subculture of office life might be heaven for one man, but it looks like hell to us, under the context that ""Den Brysomme Mannen"" operates on. To work in the afterlife, in essence, is to work for the rest of your life. The social intercourse among Andreas' office mates may pass as normal in the physical world, but death is a variable that creates estrangement in the viewer, as he/she now recognizes the drudgery of white-collar labor performed by white-collar laborers, who kill the hours with their inconsequential small-talk and designated jobs they perform during the course of a day like automotons, each and every day, seem irrational in its self-evident absurdity. To see daily life replicated in a speculative light, ""Den Brysomme mannen"" makes normal human interaction look like deadpan comedy, as quotidian life becomes a performance, which transforms Karl Marx's meaning of the word ""alienation"", because here, the men and women in the office, ""do"" identify with their labor, like actors in a play who conspire to make their fictionalized selves appear real. But the bothersome man never fully participates in the facade. He's always aware of the cracks.  From a wooden bench, Andreas witnesses the aftermath of a jumper, who impales himself on an iron fence while people on their lunch breaks walk on by, indifferent to his escaping intestines that create red splatters on the clean sidewalk. Andreas faces the same impassivity from his own co-workers after he purposely cuts off his own finger, with the hope that he'll feel the pain, on a paper slicer. He doesn't. It's just another sensation, in addition to being able to taste and smell that's lost to the bothersome man. This inability of being able to take solace in the simple pleasures, amplifies the bothersome man's need for love,where simple pleasures compensated for his loneliness in the physical world. At a dinner party, hosted by his boss, Andreas meets Anne Britt(Petonella Barker). They hit it off. He walks her home. She invites him in. They become a couple. He moves in. When they have sex, however, it's good for neither Andreas, nor Anne, who seems to get more pleasure out of interior design. Love is an abstract concept, another sensation that's unattainable in this world, but love matters to the bothersome man, so he tries again with Ingeborg(Birgette Lagen), a girl from work. ""Den Brysomme mannen"" deconstructs love by presenting its foundation as a series of gestures that require performances from both the man and woman. When Ingeborg doesn't elicit the same tender feelings for Andreas after his hyper-romantic gesture of leaving Anne Britt for her, this Norwegian film reveals its secrets about the prosaic, but odd city, with an open-endedness that's solvable, and offer up multiple interpretations.  Wounded by Ingeborg's apathy towards his avowal of love for her, the bothersome man wanders into the same subway station, stands at the same platform, leers at the same couple aggressively making out, and jumps. This time, he can't die. How can you die when you're already dead? Hit repeatedly by train after train, Andreas' face turns into ground beef; his body contorts in angles previously seen only seen in art. When the bothersome man realizes that love and death are out of his grasp, he seeks out the man from the club, who was willing to say what goes unsaid in this city of the walking dead. Which is: death, not life, has no meaning.  Getting to the bottom of the mystery behind Andreas' whereabouts drives the narrative, and to the filmmaker's credit, this enigma is satisfactorily addressed, in a scene that recalls Spike Jonze's ""Being John Malkovich"", when Andreas crawls through a tunnel in order to cross over into another world, like a newborn baby, which resembles the portal to Malkovich's brain that Craig Schwartz charges people to crawl through. Andreas' attempt to traverse the great divide presents a beguiling paradox. Since heaven and earth are literally separated by a wall, this vulnerable boundary acts as a perfect encapsulation of the atheistic belief that ""heaven is a place on Earth"". But at the same time, heaven is proved by the reality of a hell; the place that Andreas is sent to after being banished from the city of his destination.",1
"A stupid teen supposed comedy that revolves a serious of misunderstanding including (but not limited to) a hooker being confused with a foreign exchange student, girlfriend beating, a girl loving a gay guy, and the straight guy that loves her, and bitchy gossipers. None of the following is funny or even amusing. Nation Lampoon's use to be hilarious back in the day. Now the name is sadly synonymous with crap. And this one is NO exception. I use to think Topenga was kinda cute when she was on ""Boy Meets World"", but it seems she let herself go (and yes I know she has a name, but into she does ANYthing else worthwhile, she'll stay as Topenga)   My Grade: D  Eye Candy: Kati Lohmann gets topless; Boti Bliss relies on a body double (BOOOOO!!!)",0
"On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.  In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.  Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.  The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name ""pip"" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.  The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life.",0
"I didn't really know what to expect from ""Future-Kill"", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? ""Future-Kill"" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like ""The Warriors"", ""Escape from New York"" and ""The Terminator"", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!",0
"Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.",0
"I always knew the day was coming. We all knew. There's only so much oil in the ground, and one day we'll run short. But isn't there supposed to be enough coal to use instead? And wind power, or something. Things for future generations to worry about.  Then this documentary hit me smack between the eyes. Oil makes the fertilizer that is the reason for the first time in world history practically no one lives on farms. When the inevitable oil shortages hit, a lot of things -- air travel, many drugs, plastics, life in the suburbs -- will become impossible. But the craziest insight from the documentary is this: oil gives us so much energy with so little effort, that without it our lives must change. Even if substitutes and conservation are implemented immediately, at best they'll smooth our landing into a strange post-oil world which (the documentary claims) could be starting NOW.  Despite its gloomy message, the documentary is often highly entertaining. It contains fabulous historical footage (sober images of dark urban factories, and campy funny stuff from the 1950's) which reminds us of why we moved to the suburbs in the first place. It also offers hope that a massive effort started now could both ease our transition from oil and make the world a better place.  My only complaint about the documentary is that it does not spend time on the mystery of why we are finding this stuff out now. How can this be a big emergency all of a sudden? We knew in the 1970s we should be preparing for a post-oil world -- and we started to prepare with alternative energy research and smaller cars. If our failure to follow through on President Jimmy Carter's initiatives 25 years ago has doomed us to a hard landing in a post-oil world, why was no one shouting about it on soapboxes?  In the end I found the documentary highly persuasive; and it left me with the terrible chill of being dragged out of a very lovely dream. This is must viewing for everyone not afraid to face a very likely near future that we still have time to do something about.  - Charles",1
"quite good, don't expect anything high culture.......the acting is bad, the storyline fails, but it is still a fairly nice movie to watch. why? because it's dark, a little bit stupid, like unpredictable and just entertaining and fun to watch. do not expect anything, like i said, just see it for yourself and you know what i mean.  it is a movie, without a plot or memorable acting, but there are enough scenes that will make you laugh, cry or at least make you feel compelled to watch it to the end...  this is all i wanted to say....  7 / 10",1
"I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself ""I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny"", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.  I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.  It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.",1
"Perhaps the deepest cartoon made in the USA, ""Duckman"" runs short at 70 episodes in four seasons.  Unlike the often innocuous criticism found in ""The Simpsons"" (a pretty good show in its own right), and the rude-for-rudeness-sake humour in ""South Park,"" every bit of this series follows a plan. The criticism of US society, from its mercantilism to its selfishness, carries much more bite than it does in any other animated series.  The cultural references in ""Duckman"" also tend to be obscure sometimes (anyone browsing the fan sites will realize most have not even been caught). In that, it is different from ""The Simpsons,"" which usually uses pop culture instead of the high-brow stuff often hidden in ""Duckman."" As other people writing about it notice, there is a growth in the characters (Bernice, Duckman and Cornfed). Also, by making the main character not just an offensive neurotic but in fact someone who is living a personal tragedy (as is made clear in episodes like ""The Once and Future Duck"" ('You'll love her until the end of your days...') and in ""Bev Takes a Holiday"" (when he takes a chance to tell Beverly all those things he couldn't tell Beatrice), the series is anchored in a deep sense of reality.  One can't avoid feeling sorry for him and his lucid madness.  All in all, in my opinion, the best cartoon ever made in the USA and one of the best series ever. I doubt it will ever be on DVD though. Far too many things the Duck said make much more sense today.",1
"This is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!  The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.  The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.  This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.  A must see for a science fiction fans.",0
"Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.  The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. ""BOONES! Hi, Bones"" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky!   The ""Special"" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.  Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! ""Capt. Life is Not A Dream"" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.  A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.  Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.  The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.  The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....",0
"This movie is funny and sad enough I think that it is kinda true. If you love Office Space then you will love this movie because it is another Mike Judge hit, but it is nothing like Office Space. I told every one to see this movie. I only wish that it would have been in more theaters so it would have gotten the recognition it deserved. I love this movie and would love to see more from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson is also what makes this movie what it is. I am so glad that I will not be alive in the year 2505, because if this movie turns out to be true we are all in for a lot of trouble. I just hope more people see this movie because I know that they will fall in love with it too.",1
"This film is a hodge-podge of various idiotic cliches. For instance, boy-meets-spoilt-rich-girl and gets her to fall in love with him by harassing her in college (an over-used backdrop in recent Indian commercial films). A male chauvinistic glorification of sexual conquest. The climax is predictable (having been used ad nauseum in several other films). As with many other recent commercial Hindi films, the film abounds with the incongruous insertion of songs, which probably contributed to the film's success more than anything else.",0
"I'm sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.  Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.  Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.  3/10",0
"""Flashdance"" meets ""Meatballs III"" or maybe it should just be called ""Meatballs IV"". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: ""This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it"".  ""Gimme An F"" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her ""Clueless"" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific ""Teen Wolf Too"" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in ""Animal House"". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.  Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of ""The Lucky Ducks"" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named ""The Demons"". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.  Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.  While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from ""Mad Max"". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.  An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.  Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.",0
"When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)",1
"Throughout watching ""End of Days"", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see ""Se7en"") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end ""battle"". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.  Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.  The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.  Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.  4/10",0
"In an early scene, Luca (David Pasquesi) and James (Jeff Garlin) are walking down a neighborhood street in Chicago, admiring the bucolic architecture, when a woman, angrily arguing in French on a cell phone, passes by them, prompting James to remark, ""There's nothing hotter than an angry French woman."" A few blocks later, they pass an old Filipino woman, also angry, also arguing on a cell phone, and Luca remarks, for referential effect, ""There's nothing hotter than an angry, elderly Filipino woman.""  The humor in Jeff Garlin's I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is best characterized by the word quotidian. The film is a conversation. We might as well be eavesdropping. Rather than go for antics, the film relies on character flaws and human curiosity to deliver laughs. While it's not innovative, it is far from banal, and even if James views himself as being rather jejune, we know that he is fairly average, and this endears him.  Self-betterment is the primary theme of the movie. Sarah Silverman, who plays Beth, is excellent as the catalyst of change; she revitalizes James, and so reminds him to live a better life. Even so, achieving some idyllic dream is not the end of these characters, but rather something simpler: that they might pick up what pieces there are of the life they love, just to keep for themselves at least enough to carry on.  A movie about life lessons can be overwrought, as it can forget to connect with its audience. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is subtle and winsome, and while its moral may not be inspiring, it is still resonant. This is low-key comedy, but it will stick with you.",1
"This is pure CRAP, and probably the worst Biblical theme film ever... Absolutely inaccurate, I mean, they've put Sodom and Gomora BEFORE the great flood. They've described Lot as a friend of Noah although he lived after Noah. To make things worse, later Lot became a pirate and attacks Noah's Ark during the flood!!!??? And what's with the merchant who comes along on a boat which is moved over the water with a bicycle mechanism??? And exchanges alcohol for a food and water, and then Noah is portrayed as alcoholic!? Mockery, and continuous blasphemies one after another, and it goes on and on, and on... Film maker and all participants surely secured themselves the front row in hell with this garbage...  Please stay off this crap, because you will save yourself nearly three hours of your life.",0
"I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia… Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.",0
"""L'appartement"" has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with ""Hatred"", also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard Dépardieu/Pierre Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from ""Brotherhood Of The Wolves"" and ""Dobermann"" I have not yet seen a bad movie with this couple. ""L'appartement"" sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't worked this well since ""Pulp Fiction"". Let's just hope there won't be a godawful American remake of this unique romance/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A godawful American remake has been made!)!",1
"""twin peaks"" and ""blue velvet"" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.  many people will walk out of ""mulholland drive"" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.  It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in ""vanilla sky"", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.",1
"I am utterly astonished at how over-rated ""Cemetery Man"" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he ""wows"" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. ""Cemetery Man"" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often ""elegant"", but even the most ""artsy"" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. ""Cemetery Man"" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that ""it's a more sophisticated zombie movie"". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more ""sophisticated"" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play ""horror movie"", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.",0
"I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.  One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood.   Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.  The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue.   The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.  Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.  In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.  Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.",0
"""D.O.A."" is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel  Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence  are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside  the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie  when you have no other choice.  My Critique: **  Rating: [R]  Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*  *There was no rating reason available due to its age.",0
"A wonderful little production.   The filming technique is very unassuming- very old-time-BBC fashion and gives a comforting, and sometimes discomforting, sense of realism to the entire piece.   The actors are extremely well chosen- Michael Sheen not only ""has got all the polari"" but he has all the voices down pat too! You can truly see the seamless editing guided by the references to Williams' diary entries, not only is it well worth the watching but it is a terrificly written and performed piece. A masterful production about one of the great master's of comedy and his life.   The realism really comes home with the little things: the fantasy of the guard which, rather than use the traditional 'dream' techniques remains solid then disappears. It plays on our knowledge and our senses, particularly with the scenes concerning Orton and Halliwell and the sets (particularly of their flat with Halliwell's murals decorating every surface) are terribly well done.",1
"This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go.",1
"Honestly, Mr. Thalluri.... if you do a drama movie in a high-school setting following a bunch of teenagers through a school day and if you mess up the time-frame and jump back and forth... if you do that, you can't use the exact same visual story telling device of ""Elephant"" which is using a camera that is passing of from one character to the next and having scenes shown 3 times from different angles. You just can't do that because this is such a blunt rip off its hard to believe anyone gave this more than a 5 rating.  Where ""Elephant"" (which was released 3 years prior to this movie) uses school shootings (or to be exact the Columbine shooting) as the focal point for its script 2:37 uses teen suicide and seeing the reviews the shock value of that subject worked. Its the same slow story telling, a lot of dramatic piano music all leading to a finale you know from the beginning. At least the characters look like they tried hard to be somewhat different in that department. So you got a untypical gay guy who looks acts like a stoner/skater, a hunky lover-boy who can't deal with his gay side, brother and sister from a rich family who both got their very own problems and here comes the nose dive.   You also get a spoiled bulimic chick and one of the most ridiculous characters ever... a guy with medical conditions who wets his pants because of ""2 urethra syndrome"" who actually never heard of the invention of diapers but rather pisses his pants in the classroom and then change into new clothes and does so EVERY DAY! WOW, as hard as this movie tries to be realistic this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. He gets beaten up on the toilet and is obviously ashamed of it but doesn't wipe the blood of his nose when going through the whole school with wet pants and a bleeding nose. Thats new-age realism directly leading to ""the twist"" and final character who turns out to be the suicide victim...  After watching the ""very realistic"" life of teenagers (one day including, incest-rape, teen pregnancy, bulimia, parental pressure for grades and appearance and the gay subject mentioned before, kind of like your ""very realistic"" daily soap... trying hard to be) we watch a girl die we met once in the beginning of this movie and who has no reason but that the guy she had a crush on left the room when she was talking to him (in a thoughtful piano playing sequence BTW, seen that somewhere before??). And it gets even better... before slitting her wrist in a painful long scene of ""Yes"" and ""No"" she asks 2-urethra-guy if he is OK, constantly smiling and then she cuts her wrist with scissors in a school toilet.   Now you got a movie that is a total rip-off of Elephant, fails with some really sloppy story telling (the whole rape-incest thing was pretty unbelievable too by the way) and people call this a shocker.  What the heck is going on?? Is all it takes to take some pseudo-dramatic music, boring story telling and adding a shock subject on top and people think there is a major deep message here?? I think Elephant is way overrated already but that movie was the original while this here is an obvious rip-off failing on many more levels. I have never ever seen a more brazen stealing of a whole movie concept in my life... and believe me I watched a hundred of horror movies so I know how low you can go there. This is a total let down in all departments... its nor realistic, its stolen, its damn slow and by all means I wonder whats more useless... another romantic suicide (many give this point to the movie which makes me wonder if they only watch Romeo+Juliet all day long because there is dozens of movies which deal with the subject in a clear non-romantic and MORE REALISTIC way) or this ridiculous set up... Come on! I am still trying to work out if 2-urethra-guy or the suicide itself is more unrealistic and ridiculous.",0
"An entertaining first draft for ""North By Northwest"", ""Saboteur"" has some wonderful Hitchcockian moments (one of the best occurs at a table, when the hero is asked by a woman who hasn't yet seen that he's wearing handcuffs, to give her a plate; trying to do that, he also drops a knife to the floor, exposing himself even more!) but suffers from a poorly chosen lead (whether he's delivering patriotic speeches, romancing Priscilla Lane, making jokes or trying to look worried, Robert Cummings is wooden), and from a lack of really distinct villains (oh, there are villains, many of them, but hardly anyone has enough screen time). (***)",1
"""The Dresser"" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to ""Terms of Endearment""-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).  Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of ""King Lear""; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.  Grade: A",1
"This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).  Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!",0
"Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.",0
It resembles so much to movies like PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS that is impossible to think that Tarantino's films weren't a source of inspiration to this THURSDAY. However for a low cost B-Series movie it's not bad. The plot about gangsters is captivating and funny and it also has a bit of dark humor and sarcasm we can find in PULP FICTION. The resources weren't many fore sure but the film is well produced. The acting also is good. I enjoyed the scene when the girl was sat on the sofa teasing the doctor... It was hot and funny at the same time! The soundtrack is nice too. I didn't hear too many songs but the ones I heard I liked. I score it 7/10.,1
"The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.",0
"I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their ""mid 20's"" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work.",1
"Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.  Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.",0
"I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).  The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.  Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 3/10.",0
"I think the movie was one sided I watched it recently and find the documentary typical of western movie makers that was biased without substance. The fact is prostitution do exist everywhere in the world not in Tanzania alone and not because of this fish business, there prostitutes were there way before the Russian and other business people arrived in Mwanza. Poverty is indeed endemic in Africa let alone Tanzania and this is not because of fish fillet business, in fact the fish industry has helped millions to support their families on their daily life. This movie just tarnish the good image of this peace loving country. As for the arms trade the film could not substantiate if there is any truth in that indeed looking critically at the films one is doubting the authenticity of the film maker, it seems that their trying to prove their point by using a few characters which can be done for anything really. Yes Tanzania is a poor country yes there are prostitutes and street children but they are not the product this business, it is just a common scenario in most poor countries indeed the world over even in the western world...What a load of rubbish.  The pilot themselves are talking of sending weapons to Angola which is more than 2000km south of Tanzania and the war was in DRC also miles away from Mwanza, the director could not give evidence how these weapons were transported from Mwanza to DRC!  In short the films lacks focus and respectability, it is quite easy to find the character anywhere in Africa and has nothing to do Darwin's nightmare or fish fillet...What a load of rubbish!  The truth is the Nile perch has not decimated all other species in the lake contrary to what the movie portrays and also less than 25% of all catches from lake Victoria are exported the rest is consumed locally so lets get that one right.",0
"The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others.   Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times.   What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.  I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's ""Son of Paleface"", and I caught it again in 1958's ""The Big Country"" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.  Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.  Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson.",1
"First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout.   The f/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations.   The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that.",1
"This is without doubt the most exciting and satisfying film I've seen in years! The plot seen in print is almost banal- a ship crashes on a desert planet with three suns, the survivors have to adjust to the landscape and each other, then darkness falls and the monsters appear. Pilot Fry, after a moment of cowardice during the descent through the atmosphere when she almost jettisoned the passengers, takes charge of the group and enlists the help of convicted murderer Riddick to lead them through the darkness to the escape ship - he's the one with surgically enhanced eyes that can see in the dark. But it's really not that simple - every character is complex, three-dimensional, with conflicting traits so you never quite know who's good and who's bad.  The performances are uniformly superb - Radha Mitchell shows Fry steeling herself for leadership, overcoming her own fears, and trying to prevent further bloodshed, while Cole Hauser, as the man taking Riddick back to custody, shows he has his own agenda and his own idiosyncratic standards. But the film belongs to Vin Diesel as Riddick - he has the most magnetic screen presence I've seen in years. For much of the film his face is in shadow, and he doesn't actually say a great deal, but he draws your attention all the same. Sometimes he draws your attention by not speaking - or by not moving. And Diesel doesn't trivialise the character, as could so easily be done, by giving him a ""heart of gold"" - Riddick is still one mean and vicious man as they approach the ship - he just lets us glimpse those first tentative steps from caring only for the self to caring for others.  Technically the film is very good. The lighting effects are excellent at both ends of the spectrum - the overbright triple sunlight and the pitch darkness. Special effects showing both Riddick's and the monsters' points of view add to the suspense, as do sound effects of the monsters flying and using ultrasound to ""see"" (the monsters themselves are anatomically plausible and suitably frightening). Editing is so tight it's almost jarring at times - there is literally no padding in this film, no fades, no time to re-orient yourself.  From the opening shot to the end of the credits you have to keep your wits about you. Every scene, every line of dialogue, every single camera shot is important. See it three times to understand it all.  My only caveat is about the science - the solar system as shown in the model is impossible (planets revolve around suns, not vice versa). However, that doesn't affect the human story, so I haven't taken points off for it.",1
"The Soap is an interesting movie and very brilliant at parts. You must watch it for its strong characterisation and the risks the plot about two troubled individuals falling in love takes. You must know the story through various other reviews, so lets speak about what is brilliant about this movie.  Firstly, the two protagonists are so real and such intriguing personalities. The first being a woman who has opted out of a four year relationship and is angry enough to sleep with anyone coming her way. The second being a man who has always wanted to be a woman, whose pain and loneliness is shown with so much sensitivity and brilliance. You hate the former and your heart bleeds for the latter.  The second thing about this movie is the entire concept of loving one for who one is, irrespective of gender. So, would you still love your partner if he/she were to change his/her sex? The movie explores that idea and it is a beautiful one.  But there is one point where the movie fails. I wish the relationship between the protagonists had developed in a better way. That what they feel is love doesn't come across till the end. But watch it, and post your thoughts on it here.......",1
"While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the ""?"" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called ""Pearl"" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.  In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.  Title (Brazil): Not Available",1
"Just got out of an advance screening, and wow was this movie hilarious. Possibly better than the first one, but at least its equal. If you don't like jackass, or really unnecessary amounts of male nudity(way more than in the first) then stay far, far away. But if you dig the whole Jackass thing, then this movie will not disappoint. Toro Totter is the greatest invention ever. OK. so my review wasn't long enough... All else i have to say is poor, poor Dunn, they really kick the crap out of him in this. So if you enjoy masochistic humor, and prolific male nudity, and by far the most disgusting female nudity ever (John Waters is involved, need i say more?) then this movie will keep you in stitches for it entirety. I never stopped laughing, and actually came out drenched in sweat.",1
"In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. ""R Xmas"" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.  Title (Brazil): ""Gangues do Gueto"" (""Gangs of the Ghetto"")",0
"First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!  If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared ""too human and real"" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.  I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, ""ain't"" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.",0
"It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine.   This movie's theme is ""modern prostitution"", but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's ""Hero"", but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.  The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.  I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.",0
"The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.  I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. ""All men are violent."" ""All men rape women."" ""Men are only animals."" All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.",0
"""Problem Child"" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.  I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.  And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.  I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?  In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.",0
"The recent release of ""Mad Dog Morgan"" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. ""Mad Dog Morgan"" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is ""Mad Dog Morgan"" that comes to mind.",0
"I enjoy films of various kinds and qualities. Whether it's your typical standard Hollywood action movie or your Oscar season tear-jerker, movies that meet a certain standard will almost always be enjoyable for me.  In Soap Girl, I received nothing but confusion. First, we meet Maya, a massage parlor worker who seems to attract all the customers in the parlor. A virgin poet named Harry comes in one day and they fall in love. After that, there are various twists and turns thrown into the plot which seem to lead nowhere.  Although many have commented on the controversial issue of an Asian prostitute being exploited by the white man, keep in mind that this film was made by an Asian director who wanted to bring light to the issue. But whether he succeeds or not does not matter, for the issue at hand is whether the movie is enjoyable or not.  For me, Soap Girl fails to meet the standard I expect from movies. It was hard for me to get involved emotionally with this movie, given the loose plot and the mediocre acting. Worse, it seems as if the director wanted to make a drama, when the tone falls more towards comedy.  A movie such as Soap Girl which fails to trap me into the magic of cinema will always leave me bored. Throughout the movie, I couldn't help but think, ""What is this really about?"" A movie has to answer that question before it is made. If not, what you'll end up with is an empty push to captivate the audience.  Grade: D+",0
"There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.",0
"I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge ""Jaws"" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.",0
"The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad.",0
"I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.  I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.  And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.",0
"This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.  When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.  Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.  The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.",0
"Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong!   Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying ""man"" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.  The best joke was were one guy asks ""Why are you talking to your watch?"". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).  It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.  Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!",0
"Though several scenes of Wirey Spindell can be described as ""over the top"". I thought that it was refreshing to see something that was willing to go to a level of near-taboo twisted comedy.  Wirey Spindell is a great film with great dialog. I wouldn't say that this film is for everyone, but the film is on my top 10 list.  If you can look beyond it's occasional offensiveness and watch it for the film that it is, I would hope you could see it in the same light that I do.",1
"This one kind of is like an earlier movie from 1987 ""Masters of the Universe"" based on the cartoon ""He-man"". Basically, you have a great old world and they for some reason have to have nearly all the action of the movie take place on modern earth. Well I guess it is not so modern earth now and that it is an ancient world now of strangeness and a den of good times gone by. Well I guess I can figure why they did in fact place nearly all the movie in modern times in this and that movie. To save money on costumes and sets. It is a lot easier to recreate what is going on in the present than a strange world like that of Eternia in He-man or an ancient world with cults and strange pyramids, sacrifices and strange creatures that hug you to death. This movie is forgettable and not very entertaining, your first clue that it is not going to be the best movie in the world is that Robert Z'Dar is in it. The only thing this one has going for it is the animals which are not as prevalent in this one as they were in the last. Marc Singer is back and it is sad to seem him in this state, the guy was a fairly good actor reduced to trying to make a sequel to a movie that really did not need one, and even if it did it came five years to late.",0
"I love this movie. It is the first film Master P have ever done. It is based on the story of his life. It is low-budget, but it is very good. It shows how Master p grew up in projects in New Orleans.  Not only did Master P start in this movie, he also was the writer and director with Moon Jones. The DVD also has The No Limit ice cream party on it. This movie shows how Master P goes from bad too good and how he had to deal with the things around him. It also has many of The No Limit Records roster in this film. You should buy or rent this film.  It is a great movie to watch is you like rap, or is a Master P fan. I will not spoil this movie for you. Go get this movie as fast as you can and watch it. You will like it.",1
"The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.  ""Maximum Risk"" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clichés & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.",0
"It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.  It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's ""It's A Wonderful Life"" to Wenders's ""Wings of Desire.""   The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.  My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.  But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.  ""Northfork"" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.  An easy nine stars.",1
This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this.,1
"My family and I enjoy this show and find it a fair thumb nail sketch of what the people went through.  My own father spent some time in Changi before going onto the Thailand-Burma Railway in ""F"" Force. Much as been said about the treatment the POW's received, I will just say that my father was 6 foot 1 inch and 196 lbs when Singapore fell, at the end of the war he was 5 foot 11 inches tall and 91 lbs.  No show could truly convey what the POW's went through, but this comes closer than most.  As the Ex POW's say, ""If you didn't have mates you didn't survive."" This show succeeds in getting this message across.",1
"If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100% pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking and mind twisting.  Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as ""calm moment before the storm"". With thorough introduction of characters, imho viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and Japanese movies strongest point.  Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself. That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge/Ju-On over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it!",1
"I must admit that I am a fan of cheesy '80's cartoons, but this is among the best. Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer is one of the most watchable and entertaining of the Rainbow Brite cartoons, and is much better than the TV series. I especially like the relationship between Rainbow and Darian and find it very amusing. My favorite character, though, is Starlite who is definitely the most ""magnificent horse in the universe""!  I also recommend Rainbow Brite: New Beginnings, which tells the story of how Rainbowland came to be. Have a Rainbow-Day!",1
"Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a bookstore in the sleepy, coastal town of Loblolly by the Sea. Divorced, Helen has a young daughter who is going to camp for the summer, giving mother a bit more freedom. Working at Helen's store are the manager, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres), a man-crazy village-gossip girl who has eyes for the handsome fireman, George (Tom Selleck), and two young college students, Jennifer (Julianne Nicholson) and Johnny (Tom Everett Scott). One day, Helen stumbles across a romantic, tender love letter and she suspects that Johnny has written it for her. Throwing caution to the wind, Helen and Johnny begin a small-time ""thing"". But, the letter subsequently lands in others' hands, including Janet's, who thinks George has sent it to her, and Johnny's, who imagines Helen has penned it for him. And, on and on the letter goes. But, in truth, George possibly has eyes for Helen and Jennifer has fallen hard for Johnny. The town's museum curator, too, may have a secret love. Will tangled affairs like these ever straighten themselves out? This is a cute movie with a gorgeous setting and capable stars. Each of the main actors gives a pleasing performance, including the addition of Blythe Danner and Gloria Stuart to those mentioned previously. Then, too, the coastal scenery is most lovely, the costumes quite well-chosen, and the photography very nice indeed. There are a few surprises, including a subtle gay plot development, which may not please all viewers. But, for those who love romantic comedies, this one should be included on any list of good choices for the genre.",1
"Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, ""This won't be the last gag we see tonight."" Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.",0
"I found this dvd in the store and figured, why not support some indy film and watch a cool horror flick. Please save your time and money and pass this one by. The acting, the script, practically everything with this film is sub par. There really isn't much of a story, and there is no character development. I found myself not caring what happened to the people in the movie as long as something happened. Everyone is supposed to be college age, but they all look like they are in their mid thirties, except for the woman who plays a mother who looks like she is pushing 40. In fact the worst part of the film is that every single scene is shown in a master shot. There is no editing, no cut ins or close ups. Do yourself a favor and skip it.",0
"...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.",0
"This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc.   The topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated, but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director.   It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself.",1
"Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).  The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched ""Pleasures of Sin"" because of the high amounts of sex.  The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.  So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.  Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else.",1
"My family watches this movie over and over. Even our 3 year old loves it. I like the ""goodness"" in the movie. Giving the stranger a chance...showing goodwill to one obviously in need of some unconditional acceptance. The movie gives a feeling of goodwill and victory. One other aspect of the movie that makes it so appealing is the personalities of Velvet's siblings. The bird lover. The bug lover. The boy lover! Very cute and happy movie. There is one thing, however that is irritating about it. That is how Mrs. Brown often makes Mr. Brown look foolish or unwise. She, at times,comes off as a know it all, and he as a dimwit, which he is not. Too bad to put that into such a nice story. Nevertheless, we will continue to enjoy this wonderful, old movie!",1
"Stumbled over this film on Amazon.com. Had never heard of its release but the three reviews gave it five stars and rave reviews so being a lover of German movies I bought a copy...  Have to say that I was not impressed. The production values are cheap, the story is derivative, the characters are less than engaging and for a comedy it is surprisingly short on laughs.  I wanted to like this but I just found it lackluster and dull. Or maybe I expected more of independent German cinema than a gay spin on The Full Monty and a cast of stereotypes.  There are bits in the film that make no sense at all, like one of the Leather Bear's trying to get Ecki in a sling --like he'd even look at him twice? Or the vengeful ex-wife turning up at the match but ending up cheering for her estranged gay husband? Bunkum is not the word! Well, at least it explains the movies UK title, I suppose...",0
"I saw this film over Christmas, and what a great film it was! It tells the story of Custer (played by Errol Flynn) during and after his graduation from Westpoint. Although I've heard that the film isn't very historically accurate (Hollywood never is) I still enjoyed it as I knew little of the real events anyway.  I thought Errol Flynn was brilliant as Custer and has since become my favourite actor! His acting alongside Olivia De Havilland was brilliant and the ending was fantastic! It brought me close to tears as he and Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) rode to their deaths on little big horn.  I had always known that Errol Flynn was a brilliant actor as he was my dads favourite actor, and I grew up watching his films as a child. But it wasn't until I watched this film that I realised how great he actually was.  I'll give this film 10 out of 10!!",1
"Thinking that it could only get better was the worst assumption I ever made....  Drivvle does not describe this movie appropriately enough!  Not only is the plot thin, but I get more emotional acting from my pet fish!  It was a shame to see Pete Postlethwaite, whom I respect as an actor trying to do the best with the little he had to work with...  I think that a cardboard cut out of Stephen Baldwin would have done a better job , and in fact have been more animate.  Avoid at all costs! This could really be hazardous to your health!",0
"As with so many modern US films, there has to be a supernatural element to the plot, but if you just let that go, this is a tale with heaps of charm and a kindly heart cased in a crab shell.  We are presented with a scene of a town in an economically depressed area struggling to find anything to be happy about. Beau Bridges' character is really up against it with a family on the increase, a nil bank balance and a brother-in-law who's sold out to a big business chain which he secretly hates, but in which he is willing to rub Beau's nose. D'Onofrio finds his rather surface Bubba lifestyle cramped by having to look after his 'blessed' baby brother, Joey, and is itching to escape the shackles of this dead hick town. Their boss's business is closing down (much against his will) because of a lack of new customers and he is haunted by memories of his father as he builds up the tension towards his own attempt at self-destruction.  Joey, who had seemed to personify the curse on their lives, is lost at sea - believed drowned - in a freak accident. His miraculous restoration to them by the Portuguese trawlermen whose boat they had just built and launched (perhaps symbolic of an angelic crew), is the sign they've been waiting for and they all decide to give life one last throw of the dice.  There is a beautiful brooding mood throughout this work which excelled in holding our attention as brilliantly as 'The Shipping News'. There are other parallels with the later work, too, which lead one to suspect a touch of a remake. I like 'Signs of Life' for its simpler, less contrived story and star performances from actors working at their craft rather than to be noticed as stars.",1
"Hey all you jive hustlers, you stone foxes, you mean dudes. Watch out cause Slaughter is back in town! If you are looking for a bad-ass, funky film to watch some night, this is just right. 'Slaughter' is back and trying to take it easy n' relax after his adventures down in Mexico. But if you are a narrow-minded gangster like 'Duncan', you are bound to seek revenge. Why, I don't know. Was 'Hoffo' in the first one his brother or what? Any who. The movie starts off with the old ""assassination from a plane"" routine. We all know that that is THE most effective way for taking out one guy in a picnic, full of people. Needless to say Slaughter survives the ordeal, but Cmndt. Eric Lassard, sorry George Gaynes I mean isn't that lucky. SMACK!! Also Slaughters best friend Pratt is killed. This is the start of a grand adventure, filled with the hippest, funkiest music James Brown himself has to offer. That's right 'The Godfather of Soul' has put his trademark up on this bad-boy. In addition to Jim Brown in the lead part, this movie is filled with some of the biggest names the blaxploitation scene has to offer. How about Scatman Crothers, Dick Anthony Williams, Gloria Hendry and Brock Peters. In other parts we see none other than Judith M. Brown and last but definitely least the fantastic Don Stroud as the evil henchman.",1
"Cocky medical students play chicken with process that simulates death, in attempt to get a (hopefully temporary) view of the afterlife. Certain plot twists and themes are a little off the mark, and the acting occasionally goes over the top. But the underlying message - about God's and others' forgiveness for our real or perceived sins - is positive and unique in cinema, and the cast is very very good. The last sequence between Julia Roberts and her father is so effectively done that, years after having seen it, I still get chills thinking about it. Highly recommended.",1
"That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.",0
"""The Wizard of Menlo Park"" was deeply responsible for many things we take for granted in 2007: even if he did not invent them without rivals or assistants, he gave birth to the electric light, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the electric car battery, the electric power grid (possibly his most important but least recalled invention), the pre-fabricated house, and innovations to the telephone and telegraph, as well as the ticker-tape machine and an early voting machine. The total number of patents is over 1,000 - far more than any other American Inventor.  But Edison was a ruthless business competitor. He frequently had vast legal fights over the precedence of his inventions over rivals. The best example is the telephone, where he was one of seven or eight rivals with claims against Alexander Graham Bell. Actually Edison's invention here was not the central idea that Bell and Gray had come up with independently of each other in 1876, but an improvement on the sound quality of the phone receiver and transmitter that Bell did not develop. Still it was part of the huge 1888 Supreme Court decision that was the longest U.S. Supreme Court decision (a single volume of their reports!) written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite - which, by the way, killed the poor Chief Justice from overwork within weeks of completing it.  In 1886 Edison found an equally ruthless competitor in the area of electric power grids for large cities. This was George Westinghouse, inventor of the railroad air break. Westinghouse's firm had gotten the assistance of a new inventor, and former Edison assistant, Nicola Tesla. Tesla developed ""alternating current"", which was a rival system to Edison's ""direct current"". Edison's system was basically a straight circuit system of electricity. Tesla's system allowed the current to be switched from one circuit to another - actually it was a better, and more efficient system. But Edison was determined to break this rival by a publicity campaign.  It started with electric power lines. Edison early on had his lines put underground, so that they would not be endangered by weather conditions. But Westinghouse was forced to have his lines out in the open - like telephone lines. When there were several accidental deaths by repair linemen on Westinghouse's lines (in particular one incident where the repairman was burned alive in front of hundreds of horrified onlookers in Manhattan's business district), Edison started insisting that A.C. current was far more dangerous that D.C.  One result of all this was Edison helping some subsidiary inventors with getting Westinghouse A.C. generators and dynamos for an electric chair. Edison himself always denied that he invented the electric chair, but he helped several lesser figures along the way - for the complete story read Mark Essig's EDISON & THE ELECTRIC CHAIR (New York: WALKER & COMPANY, 2003).   Edison experiment himself with cats and dogs (experiments he was glad to show the public). In the long run, despite assisting in the invention of a new method of execution, Edison failed to dislodge the public support of Alternating Current. But he never stopped trying.  In 1903 he had an opportunity to combine his campaign against Westinghouse and A.C. with his invention of the motion picture camera. He assisted in ""putting down"" a well known public elephant (""Topsy"") who had killed several men. He did so by electrocuting the poor beast with A.C. But the entire killing is on film - and one can view it to this day. It is a pitiful looking film - whatever poor ""Topsy"" had done it was a poor beast - not a Machiavellian murderer. The moment we see the explosions of electricity sparks that show the death of the elephant, we are aware it will soon be over, but the sudden collapse of ""Topsy"" is still an unpleasant sight to view. The film leaves a bad flavor in the mouths of modern movie audiences. Yet, sad to say, it probably made a profit for Edison - his description of the film in his catalog of films shows real pride in his accomplishment here. In 1903 it may have been exciting entertainment for many Americans watching it. One is glad that more people are appalled by it today - sometimes one can sense the human race has improved a little bit.",0
"I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.  Due to its name ""Darwin's Nightmare"" i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.  What I actually saw in this ""documentary"" is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...  Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...  This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social/Health/HIV/Violence/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.  Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter...",0
"I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.",0
"Just Desserts was, I must say, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and even the plot line was laughable. I gave it a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1 because I enjoy laughing at excruciatingly corny movies. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but it turned out to be cornier than I expected. I thought it might not be all that bad when it started, but as soon as the name of the competition--The Golden Whisk--came up i began changing my mind. It all went downhill from there. The only thing I did like about this movie, other than snickering at it's absurd plot and dialogue, was watching them cook. However, being a movie about pastry chefs, there were minimal scenes in which they actually baked anything. I would recommend watching the cooking channel instead of this movie. You get to see more food being prepared, and you dodge the pathetic one-liners. However, if you enjoy corny love stories, which is sometimes fun, go ahead and watch.",0
"James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.",1
"I just saw this movie for the first time last night. Wow! What a movie! This is the kind of movie you want everyone in the world to see because its just so cool and so interesting.  I do not want to give a single word about the plot because I think it would be better for people to go in cold. DO NOT READ THE PLOT SUMMARY before you see the movie! All I'm going to say is that Eastwood, Malkovich, Peterson, and the screenplay by Jeff Maguire are top notch. I wish all thrillers were more like this one.",1
"I live in Mexico City, so I have to suffer throug the trailers for every piece of trash that comes out from all these stupid Mexican filmmakers. You want to admire a Mexican guy for making great films? Take a look at something by Guillermo del Toro (specially The Devil's Backbone), or maybe Alfonso Cuarón (though I really don't like his films, but I respect them).  Mexican filmmakers often produce some of the most terrible utter trash ever (Por la Libre, El Segundo Aire, American Visa), but this is one of the lowest points in Mexican films ever. If you respect your brain, please avoid this piece of **** at all costs. It would be more intelligent to watch some video of a wedding or to watch Britney's reality show. That's got more IQ than everyone in this 'film'.",0
"Sometimes you ignore that little voice in your head that says ""stay away from this movie"". We should all pay more attention to that little voice. This may be the worst movie I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting through, or it may be the best reason to remember that your DVD player has a fast-forward button. Made on a budget somewhere in the vicinity of $1.99, ""The Cavern"" is obviously a quick cheapie made to piggyback on the current bunch of scary cave-lots of darkness-claustrophobic spelunkers-unknown menace flicks like ""The Cave"" and ""The Descent"". A few years back there was similar rash of look-alike movies that used sea-going vessels instead of caves. All had scary boats/submarines-lots of darkness-claustrophobic adventurers-unknown menaces...same old same old. ""The Cavern"" is really ""The Blair Witch Project"" only this time we're lost under the earth and not lost on top of it. Throw in a flashlight with failing batteries, a cow skull with fangs glued on it for a monster, and one of the stupidest ""twist"" climaxes ever put on film. That being said, let me urge you to listen to me, the little voice in your head. I'm your friend. I want you to have a happy life. Stay away from this movie.",0
"Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.  The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.  Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.  I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.  1/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.",0
I've heard a lot of different opinions about this film and then to find out that Paris Hilton was in it as well didn't give Me the best impression of the film .... then to be dragged to the cinema by a group of my friends and sit there expecting a pile of pants i was shocked to find that i was scared stiff all the way through the film ... it was predictable yes but the build up of the deaths and the whole atmosphere of the film made it REALLY scary for me ... i was watching through my fingers the whole way through. So i say go watch it and decide for yourself and if the fact that its a scary film doesn't convince you to go watch it then it also has Chad Michael Murray in it which can't be bad to watch for a couple of hours eh?,1
"If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.  For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.  To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.  I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.  There wasn't.  Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.",0
"Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****",0
"First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, ""Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them"" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....",1
"I don't know how this film went unnoticed for so long.  I saw this film on TV, i was flipping through the channels and came across this unexpectedly well made film. i missed the first, probably , 10 minutes, but that does not matter..this film literally gripped me, it is a real spine chiller.  The absence of well known actors in the film adds on to the effect,u do not know what to expect from the actors because they are new. U never know when they will get killed or what they are up to. so it is all the more tense.Even though there are many new faces their performances were top class.  The filmmakers play with your mind, just revealing enough gore to make imagine the rest. The shock, fear, horror and helplessness are also brought out well by characters in the film.  The well written situations n twists,fast camera movements, slick editing and superb direction makes it an excellent suspense thriller. This film actually switches between the genres - horror and suspense thriller leaving the viewer clueless and tensed. Undoubtedly comparable to Hitchcock.   I could not even move from the TV even during the commercial breaks .. i was the helpless MUTE WITNESS to this superb film.",1
"Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack.",1
"If you are a weirdo who thinks it's ""romantic"" and wonderful to have sex with a woman who is the genetic equivalent of your mother, get her pregnant, and then have sex with her again once she's had an abortion AND not tell her that she is related to you, then you would like this movie.  Nevermind the fact that the guy is married and has a son at home - it makes it even more disgusting and deplorable that he has no conscience as to what he's doing. He can't do right by his job, his family, OR Maria. He's a loser. There is nothing romantic or positive about this movie - it is vile and incestuous.  It moves slowly and it leads nowhere for over the first half of the movie. I couldn't even finish watching this pathetic excuse for a 'romance'. I'm glad we didn't waste our money in the movie theater on this one. 0/10",0
"Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is ""hilarious"" and ""rivoting"" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.",0
"The story of pre-unified China must be a popular one. Jet Li's Hero made the assassination of the King popular.  This is another story made a few years earlier. It stars the incredibly beautiful Li Gon (Memoirs of a Geisha, 2046, Miami Vice) as the King's lover, who was sent to recruit an assassin so that the King could defeat him. She recruits Fengyi Zhang, but falls in love with him.  No matter, he is not able to complete the mission anyway, as the King knew about him beforehand. I suspected he also knew, but went anyway.  It was a beautiful story with massive military operations, and, of course, another chance to see Li Gong.",1
"I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant ""Paroxismus"" aka ""Venus In Furs"" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. ""Sadomania"" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.  Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.  After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.  The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about ""Sadomania"" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.  It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but ""Sadomania"" is just bad. 2/10",0
"** Black Dragons (1942) William Nigh ~ Bela Lugosi, Joan Barclay, Clayton Moore   ""Just prior to the start of World War II, Dr. Melcher (Bela Lugosi), a world-famous surgeon, is brought in by Japan's Black Dragon Society as part of a secret plan. Dr. Melcher operates on six Black Dragon Society operatives and transforms them into exact duplicates of 6 high ranking American businessmen who are replaced by these look-alikes. With their operatives in place, the Black Dragon Society's plan to sabotage the American war effort appears to be set but, the F.B.I. Chief and an agent begin to piece together the clues that hopefully uncover this sinister plot,"" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.  That synopsis gives away the entire ending; which, in this case, might be a good thing. ""Black Dragons"" is an incredible, wildly inconsistent muddle. A wiser course of action would have been to stay with the teasing supernatural angle. In early scenes, Mr. Lugosi (as Monsieur Colomb) is effectively creepy. Confusing Joan Barclay (as Alice Saunders), future ""Lone Ranger"" Clayton Moore (as Dick Martin), along with a cast of old stage and silent veterans do the best they can with a story that looks as if filmmakers were making it up as they went along.",0
"I suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising ""Dear John"" as a ""pearl"" and a ""rollercoaster ride"" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.  I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.  It is not good.  It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, ""Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way."" Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.  Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused ""shimmering strings and piano"" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own ""feelings."" The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.  ""Dear John"" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch ""Notebook,"" which was truly superb.",0
"Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.",0
"Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama (1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare hands…and won (interesting guy…look him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years!",1
"There are so many things wrong with this movie that it is hard to pick just a few. Let's start with the silly and annoying songs. Like ""Ride Little Cowboy"" which just tended to accentuate the city-slickers look of Klinton Spilsbury. The silly kiddie cowboy songs going on in the background during the movie hurt any credibility or momentum that the story had going for it.  I had seen the media hype before this movie was released, and I saw Klinton Spilsbury interviewed on various TV shows, and he had a very soft, sweet, lilting voice. His body language was not exactly what people remembered who were fans of Clayton Moore and the Lone Ranger TV series. Spilsbury did not help things by acting like a diva and talking trash about Clayton Moore after the Producers got an injunction prohibiting Moore from appearing at Conventions and other events as the original Lone Ranger. Clayton Moore was not even allowed to sign as ""Clayton Moore, The Lone Ranger."" He could only sign as ""The Masked Man."" The incredible amount of negative publicity that this move gave the film was only added to by the petulant attitude of Spilsbury who was very quick to tell reporters that Clayton Moore would be quickly forgotten once the movie came out!   Sadly, even after the movie was a total flop, the company that owned The Lone Ranger refused to lift their Injunction against Clayton Moore, and he was never again permitted to sign anything except as ""The Masked Man"" and he could not don his black mask at any public appearances. Between Spilsbury's diva personality and the negative publicity the movie got, it certainly did not help to make a good impression on the public. Worse yet, a few weeks before the movie was finally released, the news was leaked that Spilsbury's voice in the movie had been over-dubbed by James Keech because the Producers thought that Spilsbury did not sound very convincing as a cowboy. The ridicule and derision that this news brought on the talk shows and comedy shows of that era put the last nail into the coffin.  But then there was Merle Haggard narrating his way through the movie. Apparently, the Producers were hoping that the macho image of Haggard (one of the Outlaws of Country Music) would add credibility to Spilsbury as The Lone Ranger. The narration by Merle Haggard was just another annoyance that audiences had to deal with. At times Haggard rhymes his narration, and it sounds like some weird kiddie movie. Combine the rhyming narration with the ""Ride Little Cowboy"" songs and any credibility that Spilsbury could have mustered was destroyed by Haggard and the soundtrack.  Tonto was played by Michael Horse, and as others have pointed out, Horse had a lot more personality than Spilsbury. In fact, perhaps because of Spilsbury's allegedly combative attitude during filming, it seems like Horse was given a lot more dialogue and screen time than anyone would have expected of Tonto. Tonto takes charge and often is the leader instead of the Lone Ranger. I was expecting (or hoping) that Billy Jack would make a cameo as Tonto's brother (it would have made the movie a lot better). Horse is not only more interesting than Spilsbury, but he says more and has better scenes. Perhaps it was a case of Horse stealing the show from Spilsbury. However, since the movie was so wretched, Horse did not get much recognition. Unlike Spilsbury, Horse has had a very productive career in the film industry.  Perhaps the last negative about this movie is the Powder Blue outfit of The Lone Ranger. The material that was chosen for Spilsbury was more powdery blue than what Clayton Moore normally wore at appearances. That choice of color for the outfit just made Spilsbury look more effeminate in his role. The comic book version had shown The Lone Ranger also wearing a red shirt and black pants, and that alternative outfit would have helped Spilsbury look more convincing as The Lone Ranger.  The supporting cast mostly mailed in their performances. They all look as if they were working on a TV episode and nobody seemed very convincing. Even the villain, Cavendish lost his edge due to the people around him. Overall, I feel sorry for Spilsbury. Not only did he do a terrible acting job, but it is obvious that the production and publicity were horrible and effectively sabotaged any chance the poor guy had. Even if he had been an excellent replacement for Clayton Moore, I doubt that the movie would have done well as a result of the other factors. As it stands, this film is funny in a sad way.",0
"There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.  Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.  Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.",1
"This movie was a heart-felt piece of cinema that helped show the darker side of childhood, and the little things that shaped who Tom Hank's was. Using a very cryptic story, they were able to give you an idea of what truly happened to Tom Hank's character as a child. And while scenes like the flying machine may have never happened, it helped to show how even denial can help tell the truth. In all good conscience, I could not rate this lower then a 9 out of 10, great performances from all the actors, and while many may not have understood the cryptic ending in which the brother is murdered by his step father, and Tom Hanks covers it up using a far-fetched story about a flying machine, pay close attention to the little details, such as the turtle that he still has, even though his brother ""flew"" off with it. Truly, a beautiful piece of cinema, and every actor deserves recognition for it.",1
"Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.  However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.  Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.  The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one.",1
"One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the ""cannibal connoisseur."" Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.  Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a ""training exercise."" Lock up your daughters!   Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van.   The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, ""we know nothing about him except that he's dead!"" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.  Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call ""purification."" Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.  One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, ""If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you."" He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!  As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective.   Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON.   After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW.   Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs.",0
"If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a ""thriller"" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish ""starting"". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of ""No Country for Old Men"" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.",0
"Text Taken from 2001 Melbourne International Film Fest Guide.  fuckland The title is a pun based on the film's lead actor Fabian Stratas' deliberate mispronunciation of Falkland, a reference to the film's setting and a rather less than subtle allusion to the secret agenda of its protagonist.  Fabian is an Argentine national, an amateur magician passing himself off as a tourist visiting the Falklands soon after it is reopened to its people. His master plan is to win the ultimate struggle by seducing and impregnating the local females, commencing with the delicious Camilla,thus siring an entire generation of half Argentinians. Fuckland creates the illusion of a documentary and maintains a fish-eyed perspective that gives the film a voyeuristic flair and intimacy. (ARGENTINA)",1
"caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.",0
"I saw this in 1993 on a VHS tape but have been unable to find it at any source since. This is a very bleak and uncompromising look at the last days of the Japanese Army in the Phillipines. Anyone with an interest in the Pacific war would do well to view this film and see what conditions the other side fought under.From what I can tell, this is historically accurate, and depicts how easily men can descend into complete barbarism. I understand the Japanese Army was completely cut off from any re-supply in the Phillipines by 1945, so there is no doubt many of the horrific incidents depicted here happened. I might not have been able to identify with the film's characters, but I appreciate their humanity and struggle to survive. If I had to compile a list of the ten greatest war films, this film would be on it. See it if you can get it.",1
"carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done.",0
"I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it.",1
Great fun for an evening on the sofa. Don't expect Academy Award stuff with this but it will leave you with a smile. The performance by Bruce Spence is truly good. The soundtrack shows off some great old Australian talent. Check out this and other true Aussie films.,1
"I can't believe the amount of reviewers who praise this as realistic. I'm a million miles from being an expert, and I'm never going to climb a mountain; but even the very basic knowledge attained from reading Into Thin Air, and watching Everest Beyond The Limit and a few other Everest docs meant that this film just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. There is some good climbing footage at the start; and when the billionaire mission leader asks early in the film ""How much experience above 8000 metres do you have?"", I was encouraged to hope that this might be a gritty and accurate man-vs-nature odyssey. Instead you have a bunch of climbers zooming up a mountain with no acclimatisation; climbing with goggles off in full sun, and they are barely ever out of breath performing miraculous feats of endurance. Only near the summit is a little fatigue suggested, to dramatically accentuate the physical feat of climbing such a monstrous peak, almost as an afterthought. If you have no knowledge of mountaineering, give it a look: be prepared for some clichéd heroics (although no more clichéd than a hundred other passably diverting flicks), and a clichéd outcome. I've been developing a minor fascination with high mountains and was looking forward to watching K2; but other than some amazingly beautiful scenery, it was a let down because it was so far removed from reality. I can imagine some experts being employed in the making of this movie, but then being conveniently ignored in the pursuit of the heroic, and sadly fantastical storyline. Also, you would sound like a bit of a tit if you said ""welcome to the death zone"" at 200000 feet.",0
"There's a ""Third Man"" look to the shadowy B&W photography of STOLEN IDENTITY, a thriller produced by Turhan Bey, ex-star of Universal pictures during the '40s. It's an expertly filmed tale of jealousy that leads to murder when a famous pianist (FRANCIS LEDERER) becomes overly possessive of his wife (JOAN CAMDEN) and is soon intent on carrying out a scheme to murder a man she's having an affair with.  A taxi-driver (DONALD BUKA) happens to be giving the woman's lover a lift to the hotel when he steps outside a moment to chat with a worker digging up the street. Lederer uses the sound of the drill to muffle the sound of the bullet he puts in the head of the passenger from outside the back of the car. When Buka returns to his cab, he finds a dead man in the passenger seat.  Enroute to report the murder to the police, he changes his mind and decides to switch identities with the dead man who has an American passport which means Buka could realize his ambition to return to the United States. The stolen identity plot becomes thicker when the man's girlfriend (Lederer's wife) shows up at the hotel to accuse Buka of impersonating the dead man.  It's the sort of plot movie-goers have probably seen countless times, but it gets a nice workout here, with plenty of tense scenes as Buka and Lederer's wife plan how to run from the authorities until a final confrontation with the murderer and the police.  It's extremely absorbing, well done and holds the interest throughout with some excellent atmospheric photography of Vienna that will remind most movie-goers of ""The Third Man"".  Well worth viewing.",1
"Only in the Hollywood audiovisual fiction world could anybody, including FBI agents, be so unbelievably stupid. The good guys are stupid enough to pick up everything they're interested in, answer phones, go up stairways, all in search for a demolition expert who's out to get everybody. Oh yes, and then we get the Hollywood SUPERVILLAIN. He can be shot, even if he's got a vest on, and then fall down a long flight of steps and then still have the upper hand over his stupid pursuers. Every cliché you can think of in suspense movies were used. I only watched it because Yuki Amami is so HOT. Oh,,,,but yes, it's great to see how morally superior this FBI agent is, when she's pretty certain that there's a bomb in an Opera House, and she doesn't sound the alarm. Who writes these scripts????????????",0
"I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.  Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Farö, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of Göttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near…. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?  That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame.",1
"""Crossfire"" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.  I don't know about 1947, but seeing ""Crossfire"" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.  The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.  Truly excellent, and a must see.",1
I felt like I was watching an example of how not to make a movie. I think the director filmed it in his back yard! There was no real plot.   Terrible script.  Terrible acting.  The worst production I have ever witnessed. A couple of bad CG effects and then the rest of the movies was spent walking around in what looked like a junk yard.  I don't normally write reviews to movies but was moved to warn everyone about this one.  Life is to short to waste your time with this movie!,0
"I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.   It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.  It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.",1
"Like a terrible cancer raining out of the sky, I wandered into this crock on some movie channel the other night. Being a fan of bad movies, and actively engaging in the purchasing and viewing of said bad film, i was intrigued by the idea of a genuinely terrible looking action movie coming from modern times. After that wore off though, I found my hands inexplicably turning against me, grabbing at anything in range and stabbing about my head and neck. Something sinister was in that tape...err...where was I...anyway this ranks among the more embarrassingly bad pieces of film I've run across. William Forsythe can't play more than one character, and that character is always a walking joke. Even when set into a comic background and given things to do and say that are supposed to be funny (ala Deuce Bigalo) he's laughable in the wrong way. Erika Eleniak is much the same, having starred in her fair share of terrible movies and done terrible jobs in all of them, she doesn't fail to help scum up this one. Classic b-movie villain guy Andrew Divoff does a respectable job but barely even has any scenery to chew on. Even reliable standby for b-movie action Daniel Bernhardt fails to deliver anything bordering on entertainment. As for the film's own merits, the plot is lame, the script, just like the action and the plot movement, is both dull and...well, stupid, for lack of a better adjective(lord knows they didn't put any effort into it, why should I?).  Anyone who has seen enough movies has seen some bad ones, and anyone who has seen enough bad ones can learn to appreciate them, but there is simply nothing here to be enjoyed unless you are among the most bad movie tolerant and simply feel so inclined as to test your mettle. Before you do though, take it from me, this one isn't even terrible enough to be enjoyed (unlike say...some of the more ludicrous Italian zombie films). A fan of b-movie action would be much better off checking out most any of Bernhardt's other films, or pretty much anything else that has ever been put to film for that matter. America simply is not the place to go to for action it seems, especially not now. If you have a craving, check out anything from over the seas, films like Heroic Duo or the slightly less normal Hakaider(along with anything else in the awesome Keita Amemiya's cannon) will provide a lot more fun and way better action than your apt to find elsewhere, especially here.",0
"I watched DEATH MACHINES as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. As I work my way through the multiple DVD sets, I am growing to love many of Crown International's movies -- especially, the creepy, erotic, psychological thrillers!   DEATH MACHINES is not one of them.  After seeing movies like MALIBU BEACH, THE CREEPING TERROR and THE PINK ANGELS, it is hard to say that this is the worst film ever made; but, it doesn't have much going for it.  No plot; really no story to speak of.  The acting isn't evident – only the actor responsible for the terribly-played Tony (with the thick, fake Italian accent) made any attempt to ""get into character.""   The score is annoying and pedantic.  The only thing about this movie is why... what compelled the film-makers to make this film?   Did they think the story of: 1) three ninjas, 2) two competing crime bosses, 3) an ancillary bartender / karate school student character; and 4) his pitiful love-interest nurse was so compelling that the world would not be complete without this movie being made?   This is a complete waste of time and money, for you, me, the producers, writers, actors, and the director.",0
"I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one!",1
"When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the ""writer"" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word ""denouement."" Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.",0
"I knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but ""hitting"" it anyway, Ken Shamrock ""acting"", and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching ""Slaughter Studios"", are totally and completely gone from my mind now.  My Grade: F   Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless   Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)",0
"These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the ""surprise"" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say ""it was all in his/her head"" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).",0
"This movie is a cinematic collage of gangster clichés. The writing is grade z and the plot and story are constructed without care or logic. It a messy pastiche of stereotypical gangsters (think of Bugs Bunny cartoons) and silly supporting characters (the lady doctor and the writer). There are much better Bogart films out there. In fact, Bogart looks like he slept through this performance. He puts very little effort into this character. I think the directorial advice he received was something like ""He's a bad guy. Act bad"". This guy is the era's equivalent of Darth Vader; obvious, evil and the anti-hero. Don't waste your time with this one.",0
"i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!  come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...  by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!  10/10*",1
"If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.  I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.  Then Alexandra Ripley came to ""fix"" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).  The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.  If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.  Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.  I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.",0
"One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made.",1
"Too often screen adaptations of musicals compromise, but this is one of those rare occasions when every ingredient, perfect in itself, comes together and harmonizes perfectly. Midler was born to play this role, and her performance will most likely be remembered as definitive. She is supported by an ideal cast, and the direction and design are tops. It doesn't get any better than this.",1
"The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, ""not be like them"".  As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition. Simply being in love is far from enough.  I had the misfortune of sitting beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this, as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience.",1
"Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. ""Constantine""), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la ""Manos The Hands of Fate""). Now that I've seen ""Dr. Gore"" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.  I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent ""Circle of Iron"" or ""The Killer Shrews"" instead.",0
"This is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.  In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, ""Speak Low."" But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.  The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clichés and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.",0
"THE STUDENT NURSES is not a typical sexploitation movie. Sure, the nudity and sexual openness is there, but it's not all for laughs. Stephanie Rothman scripted a socially compelling, well-written tits & ass movie which confronts the topics of racism, socio-economic inequalities, rape, abortion, medical ethics, public health issues, human rights, the Vietnam war, free love, LSD and drug experimentation. Four sexy college roommates are taking their nursing internships at the same time. Sharon (Elaine Giftos) is assigned to the terminal care ward, Lynn (Brioni Farrell) to public health administration, Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) to gynecology and Phred (Karen Carlson) to psychiatry. These four beauties have ample opportunities to disrobe and fornicate, of which they take advantage, much to the delight of male viewers. These are liberated women at the height of the sexual revolution, after all, and are as intelligent as they are horny and beautiful. Visceral yet low-budget action sequences are interspersed throughout. There's a very bloody gunfight at the resistance movement headquarters in which two policemen are shot and killed, along with several members of the group. An anti-(Vietnam) war protest consisting of spookily-dressed young people of all races painted like skeletons becomes violent, with cops beating protesters. The effective trip sequence on the beach consists of beautiful, weird and confusing sensory and memory montages with hyper-sensual overtones. In short, THE STUDENT NURSES is a thoughtful and compelling reflection of the times, expressed through real women's perspectives (since it was written and directed by a woman). But, it's still fun and titillating, despite its sobering treatment of subject matter.",1
"Errol Flynn had quite a gift for comedy that was sadly rarely exploited. Given the right material this film demonstrates that he could have happily been quite at home in Cary Grant style, gentle comedies. Out of his various forays into the genre this is certainly the best. Patti Brady gives a fine performance in the child part and Eleanor Parker looks simply stunning throughout the film. An added bonus is the wonderful Hattie McDaniel who is sadly underused in this film- a welcome presence none the less. Flynn carries off his comedic duties with the same easy style that he brought to his swashbuckling roles. The fact that he makes it look like it's easy doesn't mean that it is. A super little family comedy, great for the Christmas period or any other time you feel like being cheered up.",1
"I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.  Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.  *I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!",0
"Screened this morning for the press at Roma film festival, ""N - io e Napoleone"" is easy to love. First of all it can count on great production values, as very few Italian films nowadays can, with wonderful settings and costumes. The cast is great too. Director Virzì constantly speaks of the young lead Elio Germano as ""a young De Niro"". Now, of course he is going a way too far, but sure the boy can act. I loved his performance, and he did a great job with the (tuscan) accent. Daniel Auteuil is a great actor and did very well as Bonaparte. It's really great to see him acting in Italian, I hope to see him working in Italy again very soon. The supporting cast worked well too - people like Valerio Mastrandrea or Sabrina Impacciatore may seem unlikely choices, but they all gave fine performances. Even Massimo Ceccherini, best known for appearing in his own moronic films and in trashy TV reality shows, fitted in well and was actually funny. The low point of the cast was the ""Diva"" Monica Bellucci. Sure, she was slightly better than usual, but she managed to look (and sound) utterly unnatural even in the part of baronessa Emilia, in which, with a good dose of self irony, she used her own umbro accent. The script, by veteran Furio Scarpelli and Virzì himself is clever, with lots of laugh out loud lines, and a few very emotional moments too. Sure, the ending left me puzzled. The message is kind of ambiguous: the whole film says that political ideals can bring you to blind hate, but if you get closer you will learn that the object of your hate is after all a little human being like everyone else, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, sometimes pathetic, so that suddenly it's difficult to hate him; then, in the last few minutes it says that after all it would have been better to shoot him in the head at the beginning. Personally, I dislike very much this notion. ""Io e Napoleone"" is still a pleasant film, the best presented at the Festival so far (the other being Fur and the Hoax). My rating is 8/10",1
"Intelligent summary, isn't it?  If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!  Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.  Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.  3/10.",0
"A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.",0
"I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.  This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).  Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.  But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.  Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.  I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.  The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!",1
"After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, ""Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone."" She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to ""Pepe Le Pew,"" although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise.   The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up!   I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as ""fair."" I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.",0
"I have never seen the TV Series or the previous movies. Probably that's the reason why I didn't enjoy it much. Boring and just not funny, sums it up nicely.  Considering the budget the movie seemed to have, it's embarrassing they couldn't do an even passable job.  We went to the cinema with no exceptions' at all and the hope to see a somewhat funny movie that wouldn't be too taxing on the mind. My friend fell asleep halfway through the movie and I spend the next 2 hours hoping that it would finally pick up. A hope, which died with the end credits.",0
"Not every line in a comedy is funny. This movie takes a serious subject, the disenfranchisement of voters and holds it up to the light while telling jokes about it. It's the movie The Daily Show would have made if they wanted to turn it into a movie. I found Robin Williams to be much funnier in this movie than he was in RV. And while my wife and I share a few opposing political views, we were both doubled over in laughter for several parts of this movie. The script writers here could give Fox News some lessons in fair and balanced. Lewis Black was okay for his part, but never really seemed to be able to bring out his particular brand of comedy for his role. Christopher Walken was also good, playing his fairly common subdued supporting role, pushing a story along.",1
"This low-budget film about a writer who goes to work in a London casino has an awful script, wooden performances, and not much to recommend it. Of course it will appeal to highbrows for whom ""mainstream"" is a curse word, and who automatically add 20 IQ points when they hear a British accent (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).  The script is full of holes (has he written a book yet, or not?), cliches (relationship trouble: she works days, he works nights), and provides so little insight into such basics as character motivation that it requires a voice-over narration just to move the story along.  In an attempt to keep the audience from dozing off, it includes a street fight scene that is about as realistic as a high school production of Julius Caesar.  If your idea of scintillating dialogue is ""I'll see your ten, and raise you twenty"", then RUN to see this movie. Otherwise, save your money.",0
"The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it alone…and crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry ""Rain"" Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory.",1
"The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...  Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!",0
"How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.  Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.  Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.  This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.  Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.  Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.  Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.  This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.",0
"Conrad Radzoff(Ferdy Mayne), a hammy cult icon, dies from a heart ailment(not before disposing of an ungrateful assistant and TV commercial director, both of whom disrespected him with showers of insults). His body is removed from his mausoleum by some film students(they wish to ""invite him to dinner""..they are quite big fans). What these kids(..including a young Jeffrey Combs)don't expect is that Radzoff will be resurrected by a medium to wreak havoc on those who removed him from his place of rest.  The list of violent acts include Radzoff pulling one guy's tongue out, setting a woman on fire, elevating a casket which crushes a woman's face, decapitates one fellow, and cremates another guy alive in a coffin. A really weird soundtrack and pesky fog wraps around Radzoff's ghoulish activities.  Silly hokum from Troma is limited by a very, very low budget and slowwwwww pace. The film feels a lot longer than it is. The film isn't really that gory and we can hardly see much violence because the film is often too damn dark. At times, Radzoff is an ominous presence, yet at other times he just looks real silly.",0
"I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget/underground/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground – and gay – icon!   The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers – a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)!   I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession...   Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in ""Candy Says"", the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually!",0
"When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :)",1
"i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.",0
"John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as ""The Misfits"" and ""African Queen,"" directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, ""The Dead"" tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although ""shine"" is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). ""The Dead"" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend.",1
"I quite enjoyed The Wrecking Crew (1999), which was the last of the three films in this series (the first being Urban Menace (1999) which I've yet to see). I know it was baaaaad, but the three leads did a pretty decent job, all things considered.  This, however, was truly atrocious. Ice-T was dreadful, and he's the producer! Can't say I've ever heard of Silkk The Shocker (who apparently never learnt how to spell), but his performance was one of the worst I've ever seen in a movie.  Miss Jones did pretty well in her small role, though she later went on to make some atrocious, racist ""jokes"" on her radio show after the SE Asian tsunami (plus other occasions sadly). Way to go, girl...  No-one else comes out with any credit. Strangely, TJ Storm and Ernie Hudson (who are both pretty bad here) are far better in The Wrecking Crew, which was made, along with Urban Menace, at the same time as Corrupt. How that works, I don't know.  I'm going to try the Ice-T commentary now, to see whether he apologises for the film, or tries to make us think it's a great piece of film-making.",0
"Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's ""haunted house"" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.",0
"The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.  The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.  Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.  The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.  The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.  In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.  This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.  In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.  In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.  In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, ""see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore"".  Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.  The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.  When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.  Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.  This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.  The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry.   This is a production to avoid at all costs.",0
"I still can't believe that computer graphics are able to create 3D images. The moment I heard it from my friends over at a forum, I swear to myself that I am going to make myself watch it.  I managed to watch parts of it at a fellow shopping centre where they had many Advent Children DVDs and showed it at a few laptops for sale. Obviously I was overjoyed but it was still not enough. Then I headed off to YouTube.com to search for the movie. All I came up with was music video dedications. Until that fateful day...I found it. I watched it despite all the distractions because I knew that I have to watch or else I will be called a loser.  Enough about me more on the movie. As if Final Fantasy VII wasn't enough, they made a movie about it! My most favourite part was the end of Sephiroth's life. Cloud's OmniSlash couldn't be better. But I wouldn't entirely spoil the show for you. You have to watch it for yourself!!! Get the DVD now!",1
"First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.  Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.",0
"The first full-length film featuring the Aardman characters Wallace and Gromit manages to bring in elements of all the previous half-hour show which aired on television.  Wallace runs a company to humanely capture rogue rabbits from people's vegetable gardens, and has the bright idea to try out his invention on the hapless bunnies once they're caught. Of course, as in other Wallace and Gromit films, things don't quite work out as planned.  Similarly to A Close Shave, there's a love interest for Wallace, in this case the village Lady Posh, and a big mean villain with a bullish dog. Gromit is beautifully animated with a wide range of expressions making the character laugh out loud funny. And of course Peter Sallis provides the voice of Wallace again and is a perfect fit.  And as in A Grand Day Out, cheese features heavily to great comedic effect as the film moves along.  On the negative side this film is a little on the long side. There are great effects, and some pieces which make you sit up and watch, but perhaps this story would have worked better as another short subject rather than pushing it to feature-length.",1
"Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The ""Undead"" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)",0
"Surprisingly effective British drama about two very different people who find common ground, and in particular the ""flowering"" of one of them. An embittered, ""Spike""-type youth (McAvoy) with Deuchennes MD is placed in a home for the disabled and quickly makes friends with a youth (Robertson) with cerebral palsy. Robertson has never known anything outside of the home, but McAvoy has and he is bound and determined to get back into the real world. Together, they manage to do just that in this funny and heartwarming and often heartbreaking tale of inner strength overcoming physical shortcomings. The two leads are terrific, especially Robertson, who must surely have spent some time studying the disabled to pull off this tricky role. He appears in almost every scene, and acts up an absolute storm. To anyone who doesn't know, they might think he really has CB. Highly recommended.",1
"Take a bad script, some lousy acting and throw in a politically incorrect morality tale and what do you get? Something that is supposed to pass for quality family viewing.  Seven Alone is the story of a family in the 19th century who travel across America in a wagon train, hoping for a new life in Oregon. There are seven children (three boys, three girls and a baby whose sex I'm not quite sure of) hence the title of the film.  The story opens up with the family living a seemingly normal 19th century life on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Eldest son John is a precocious teenager, 'lazy and good for nothing' as his father constantly reminds him. We see right off the bat that he has a penchant for practical jokes when he ties string to the hair of his sleeping sisters and connects it to a nearby mule. When the mule is moved of course the poor girls are jolted out of bed. John is caught by his father and is immediately punished with a strap.  That same day a wagon train passes through. Pa is tempted to join up as it promises a new life in the wild, wild west. So the family hitches up their belongings and head off.  From the very beginning the film seems weak and amateurish. The acting is below grade, as if from one of those films shown in school about the pioneers. I can't blame the actors, however, because the lines in this film are silly and just too sickeningly sweet and optimistic.  I must tell you that I caught this film while flipping channels one boring Saturday afternoon on a Christian television station. Not of a religious mind myself, I watched in horror as Seven Alone offered up moral statements that were not only outdated, but downright offensive! If I were a good Christian I would hope that I would have had the good sense to complain to the television station for airing such trash. However, because I am a cynical, non-believer with a wicked sense of humor, I chose to sit back and laugh myself silly.  In one of the opening scenes, the role of the father as the stern ruler of the house is established when he proposes the idea of heading off for Oregon to his wife. Her response is a heated ""Over my dead body."" We are expected to laugh, I suppose, as the film cuts to the next scene with Pa and Ma smiling as he steers the wagon along through the prairies. Oh I suppose even the most staunch feminist would have to admit that this 'Father-knows-best' attitude was the norm in those days, and one could argue the need for such dictatorial rule when living conditions were difficult, but I somehow got the feeling that this film supported that notion, even for today. Lovely message coming from a Christian television station.  Anyway, things get worse for the family, and the films moral integrity is further diminished. An Indian (or Native American) robs John as he lay sleeping in a field. Like a common savage, the Indian takes Johns clothes and belongings. Thankfully Pa, with the help of passerby Kit Carson, is able to kill the Indian, as well as a couple of his delinquent friends. Kit Carson tells John that his father is a true hero.  The family is accompanied by the wagon train's resident doctor, Dr. Dutch (played by Aldo Ray). He shares Pa's sentiments about John, stating that he is a useless brat. Perhaps so, but he also the best thing about this film. Aldo Ray's doctor is buffoon, who seems unable to tie his own shoes, let alone treat one of the girls for a broken leg. Thankfully the young child didn't cry when the wagon ran over and snapped her leg in two, because Dr. Dutch didn't seem to have the appropriate bedside manner. We know the drawbacks of constantly belittling a child. Here's a film that promotes that behavior.  Later on Pa develops food poisoning, or something, I wasn't paying much attention, and he dies. His death bed scene is the stuff great acting is made of. Frankly, the man didn't even look sick.  Soon after, Ma dies too. The children are left to fend for themselves. And that's when the real adventure begins. Slugging it through the rapids, encountering more Indians (these ones are nice though) and venturing through snowy terrain, these children do it all. And I was left thinking, ""What a bunch of garbage!""  Sorry, but there was nothing redeeming about this film. This low-budget Little House on the Prairie is a shameful waste of time and an insult to 'families' everywhere. I'm surprised that in 1975, at the tail end of the feminist movement, and at a time when treatment of Native Americans was coming into focus, that something like this could actually be made.",0
"An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.  I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from ""Thesis"" and ""Abre los Ojos"") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling ""The Shinning"" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.  Title (Brazil): ""A Sétima Vítima"" (""The Seventh Victim"")",0
"Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark, existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt, redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the phantom carriage: death.  Unlike many silent films during the period, the film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film. Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for youngsters for sure.  Watching the film, it's easy to see the later influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars.",1
"This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.",0
"there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)""nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10",1
"The best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, ""Don't push this"".  Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.  The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something.",0
"The only good either of the Problem Child films caused was bringing together Amy Yasbeck and the late John Ritter. Aside from that, the flicks are as demonic as their hero. In this basically unnecessary sequel, freshly separated Ben (Ritter) and his little hellraiser Junior (Michael Oliver, who never needs screen-time ever again) move to a new town infested with willing bachelorettes. Ben eventually picks Lawanda (played by the most underused original SNL-er Laraine Newman), whose Blanche DuBois tendencies don't suit Junior in the least. To add on to Junior's torture, it seems this town already has a little firestarter in younger girl form with Trixie, who coincidentally has a sweet, single mother played by Yasbeck, the same actress who played Junior's first horrible mother-through-adoption. You can see where the plot goes from here. Searching for my favorite scene is like pulling teeth, so I guess I'll go with the ""cherry bomb in the toilet"" gag that makes Back to the Future's James Tolkan one of the many grown-up victims (that guy's always playing school authority figures). Jack Warden and Gilbert Gottfried return as their parts from the first film, but sadly, there is no appearance from the Bow-tie Klansma- er, I mean Killer (Michael Richards) that made Problem Child all the more fun. On a serious note, I'm sure these films, whether abusive parents saw them or no, did wonders for the red-headed children of America. Let us also salute these proud American flicks for their terrific promoting of adoption. Oh, and dog poop jokes - gotta have dog poop jokes.... Shmucks.",0
"You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.  As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan).   Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife ""Bonnie;"" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's ""Father John Callahan;"" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor ""Father Nieuwland"" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.  What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players.   There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them.",1
"In Strangers On A Train, it's obvious from the start that playboy wastrel Robert Walker has singled out Farley Granger as an unwilling accomplice to a pair of murders. Granger's a semi-public figure, he's a tennis pro, but not an especially high one. High enough however for him to know that Granger is trapped in a loveless marriage and would like to be free to marry Ruth Roman.  So when they meet as complete Strangers On A Train one afternoon, Walker knows enough that Granger will at least be intrigued enough with the possibility that if the two of them, complete strangers, did commit homicide on parties that the other would be convenienced by their demise. Though Granger is repulsed by the idea, one of the beautiful things about this film, is that you can see in the performance he gives that Granger just might submit to temptation.  In fact when Walker kills Laura Elliot, Granger's wife whose been two timing him and even gotten pregnant by another man, he expects that Granger will in turn murder Walker's father so that Walker can inherit his estate. Today Walker would be called a trust fund baby and a pretty malevolent one at that.  Alfred Hitchcock directed Walker to his career role, ironically in his last complete film. Walker died the following year with most of My Son John finished. Hitchcock does not do too bad by Farley Granger either.   Of course when Granger does balk at committing homicide on people who never did anything to him, the tension. Strangers On A Train is also characterized by great editing, first in the tennis match in which Granger has to finish the match and waylay Walker before he plants evidence convicting Granger at the crime scene. And also in that final climax with a fight on a runaway carousel between Walker and Granger.  Strangers On A Train is Hitchcock at his best, it should not be missed and ought to be required viewing when film classes study editing.",1
"This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!  First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.  In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.  Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.  My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.",0
"This show is my absolute favorite. This show is intelligent, entertaining and always full of surprises. Lauren Graham is perfect as Lorelai Gilmore, a single mother who is Rory's best friend. Alexis Bledel shines as the beautiful and intelligent Rory Gilmore and Keiko Agena is one of a kind as Rory's best friend, Lane Kim. I love the witty dialog, it's what makes it unique about the show. Kelly Bishop is wicked great as Emily Gilmore and Edward Herrman is terrific as Richard Gilmore. Scott Patterson is a joy as Luke Danes and the band members are one of a kind to watch. The Community, Miss Patty, Babette, Mrs. Kim, Taylor Doose, Kirk and other's are always laugh out loud funny, quirky and interesting that always makes the snappy one-liners stand out. This show has changed so much over the years that it won't ever get old. Gilmore Girls is an original and clever show that keeps you watching. That is how good it is. I give this show a 10/10 rating.",1
"The setup for ""Nature of the Beast"" is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack. Oh, and over a million dollars has been stolen from a casino and someone dubbed 'Hatchet Man' is dismembering people in the desert. Sounds great, right? Sort of like ""The Hitcher"" meets ""Psycho."" One or both of these men has a secret, and nothing is as it seems! Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of ""Jeepers Creepers"" and ""Powder"" fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place. Henriksen evokes an unusual, not-quite-earthbound Everyman (even sporting an ample gut), but Roberts is about as threatening and scary as an extra in ""Death Wish 3""; we're never sucked in to the point where we actually CARE about what's happening, and the conclusion slides into improbable territory (I kept thinking it was going to be ""Fight Club"" all over again, but I was mistaken). Too bad. ""Nature of the Beast"" could have been something else...instead of nothing else.",0
"Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.",0
"If you don't like Italian horror, you won't like this film. On that note...  ""Overall... it was a terrible experience... Many things happened. Vanessa Redgrave was scheduled to be in the film, and she pulled out. One of the actors was crushed by a car. I was engaged to be married, but by the end of the picture that was finished. My father died during the shooting... all kinds of things."" -Dario Argento on the making of ""Opera""  I was truly impressed with Argento and the film he made here-- especially against such harrowing circumstances. The whole mystique of ""Macbeth"" and its curse on those who attempt to stage the play adds untold volumes to ""Opera.""  Throughout the film, Argento imploys some of his most clever (and audience directed) tricks. A young opera singer, Christina, is stalked by a violent psychopath who forces her to watch a series of brutal murders. By taping several sharp blades to Christina's eyelids the killer makes it impossible for her to close her eyes, ""Take a good look. If you try to close your eyes, you'll tear them apart. So you'll just have to watch everything!""  It is clear that Argento put great care into constructing the faux ""Macbeth"" opera on-screen, and his hard work pays off. Add to this several unforgettably brutal murders, an incredibly tense chase sequence, and the genius use of POV to portray a certain character (the role Vanessa Redgrave pulled out on, thank god) and you've got one of the best Italian horror films ever created.  That said-- it's still Italian horror. Why Christina never seems to tell anyone about this brutal murders is beyond anyone's comprehension. Some scenes might be difficult for certain viewers to stomach, but personally I felt more tension towards Christina and her eyes than any of the brutal slayings in the film. The finale to ""Tenebrae"" had my stomach churning more than anything in ""Opera,"" but that's probably just me.  And the last five minutes... Argento wanted it, he filmed it, and he's fought to keep it in the film. Absolutely no one likes it, myself included, but it's not enough to ruin the rest of the film for me. It remains one of Argento's best films to date.  9/10",1
"First, I would like to apologize for my rating of ""1""... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All ""This is a spoof"" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; ""This is quite possibly the worst film ever made."" On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...  Honestly, if I had directed this ""film"" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.",0
"Brian (Wesley Eure) works for a security firm owned by Mr. Norton (Conrad Bain). The Norton firm is in financial trouble for, unknown to the owner, he has an employee who is selling secrets to a rival firm's owner (Jim Bacchus). It's not Brian, as he is a loyal and faithful employee and a good inventor. But, Mr. Norton has no patience with Brian, in part because Norton's beautiful daughter, Casey (Valerie Bertinelli) has a thing for Brian and Norton questions Brian's motives for wooing her. However, Brian does come up with a great security device. It's called CHOMPS, which stands for canine home security system. The device, which looks like a dog, is actually a computer controlled animal with the ability to knock down walls and emit siren sounds to capture burglars. The rival owner sends two bungling spies (one is Red Buttons) to learn the details of the new invention. Will CHOMPS save Norton security? This is a fun family flick from the old school of good, clean entertainment. CHOMPS is, of course, a real dog, played by the adorable and talented Benji. In fact, Benji has a duel role, as Brian has a ""real"" dog named Rascal, too. Just watching this little dog in action is pure joy, as he is able to scale walls, ""pull"" trucks, and operate machine buttons to capture the bad guys. The human cast is also quite nice, with everyone giving upbeat performances that are infectious. Costumes, scenery, and production values are good, too. Although you may have trouble locating the film, it would be well worth the effort to secure a view for your closest loved ones. CHOMPS is a wonderful, wholesome diversion from the world's woes.",1
"For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her ""purple harem"" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.  One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.  What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.",1
"""Inuyasha "" was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clichés. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find ""Inuyasha "" incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made .",0
"The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time.  However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s.  MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan Atkinson.  Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context.  Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends, rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve.  Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always reassuring.  Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years, MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have come, gone and been forgotten.  Some critics claim the show only appeals to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they did the first time.  The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen. The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie). As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt.  Returning to the TV series, each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable and well ahead of the two movies.  My favourite episodes are the first three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless.  To summarise, MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series.",1
"I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but ""El Misterio Galíndez"" isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Galíndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.  Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in ""Deep Blue Sea"". The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.  I suggest ""La fiesta del chivo"" (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie.",0
"The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a ""Bourne identity"" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.  Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material….maybe.",0
"""The Cellar"" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films ""Witchboard"" and ""Night of the Demons"") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, ""The Cellar"" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. ""The Cellar"" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.",0
i love watching the Jericho mile. i mean watching peter Strauss run the mile is like watching usain bolt sprint the 100 meter. i think peter Strauss is a excellent actor and should do another running movie. he is lightning fast has great energy and can run a mile in under 4 minutes and that my friend is amazing. no man alive can out race rain Murphy i mean the man runs 80 mile a week no one does that but him. i've watched the Jericho mile 100's of times and will watch it 100's more. great movies get watched more than movies that are not. i thank the makers of this film for giving years of there lives to make it.they are great people and i bless them all.thank you for letting me get my word out again thank you all.,1
"The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!!",1
"What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.",0
"i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom ""hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid"".  Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.  Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!   It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good ""human interest"" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.",1
"What more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.  I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.  And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.  Definitely one to be avoided.",0
"What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.  In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.  The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.  What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.  This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented.",0
"Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5",0
"Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.  Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.  The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll / scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).  It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.  The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious!",0
"Love In Limbo is my all-time favoirite movie. (set in W.A) It is hilairious and has an excellent cast including a group of three gorgeous actors, Russell Crowe (As Arthur), back in the day when he actually looked HOT with short hair and no facial hair. Aden Young (Barry McJannet), and Craig Adams as Ken Riddle.  Ken is a senior high school student obsessed with sex and becomes expelled for selling pornographic drawings to his classmates. He starts a new job at his uncles clothing factory and becomes close with another new guy Barry McJannet, who buys a car so that they can go out and pick up chicks. They become mates with the goody-twoshoes geek Arthur Baskin (Crowe) and the three guys drive up to Kalgoorlie to vsit a brothel and lose their virginity......  Watch it, its a classic!! For so long i have been TRYING to get a hold of a DVD or Soundtrack, anyone let me know if you've got em.",1
"I saw this when it first came out, and found it to be a work of some genius; but I must confess I was clearly in the minority at the time.  For me, the progressive lunacy of the proprietors of Guest House Paradiso just gets better and better throughout the film, with one of the most hilarious climaxes to a film ever.  But I wouldn't recommend it to Mother.  Lovers of gross-out comic book style humour will appreciate this movie; there are subtle jokes hidden away, but they are usually quickly flattened by a comedy frying pan. Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson are superb, and the deadpan, unsuspecting guests are also excellent.",1
"The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others.",1
"ok, i am really into King's stuff, but this is just dreadful. the whole movie, i am waiting for the main character to do something profound with his new youth and power. i can tolerate the worst of movies, as anything is better than watching a cut movie with commercials in it. but this takes the cake. i gave it a 2, and i would never recommend it to anyone.",0
"I have only seen this once--in 1986, at an ""artsy"" theater in Minneapolis...but I remember it like I saw it a thousand times this morning. Hilarious (""Sawing for Teens"", playing Scrabble with all ""e"" tiles), beautifully animated (taking off her eyes, shaking them back into position, then putting them back on), and poignant (the end of the world, the pettiness of a snit)...  Required viewing for the human race. Calling this simply a cartoon is like calling THE GREAT GATSBY nifty typing.",1
"No,I'm not a radical feminst bashing the hentai and yaoi genre,I just find it really boring and pointless.My god,I was MADE to watch this for initiation from some stupid punk and my my,even an MST3K movie has a storyline,not to mention that this HENTAI crap is what's giving Anime a bad name world-wide (watch out Sailor Moon!).Sadly,people don't realize that not all Anime(or any other Asian style) is sleazy porn.Death to the stereotype!!!  *starts casting Ultima*",0
"Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.",0
I really liked TWO COYOTES. One of my friends rented it the other night and we were really impressed with how good it was and how cool the main guys were. I wonder if they are thinking of making a sequel because that would be excellent!  TWO COYOTES ROCKS!,1
"In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.  As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video.",1
"Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - ""eXistenZ"" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee (""P.R. nerd"") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films (""Videodrome"", ""Scanners"", ""The Fly"", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - "" I can't help myself."" ""eXistenZ"" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm.",1
I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie!,1
"A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it!",1
This is one of Michael Jackson's best music video's ever made. Vincent Prices rap is totally cool and the zombies dancing with Michael is totally amazing! Michael Jackson is one of my favourite singers and he is one of the best singer's in the world. Way to go Michael!,1
"This movie is one of the most memorable films I have seen. I went reluctantly with a Turkish friend who recommended it. I am not a very enthusiastic proponent of music documentaries, but when Aynur Dogan, a Kurdish woman banned for years from singing in Turkey, sings her piece, the theater was in awe. I would give my all to hear a CD recording of this haunting, gorgeous song. And she is just one of many artist interviewed and recorded, speaking of their experiences of performing in Istanbul. Even now, a month later, I remember the footage of Aynur singing in an acoustic auditorium, and I try to remember the music as it echoed in the cinema. Well done to Faith Akin, the director of this film, and his great idea to capture the many splendid sounds of such a cosmopolitan city. It would certainly encourage me to visit Istanbul.",1
"As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!  Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.  With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.  This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.  Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...  As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... ""The journey of a lifetime.""",1
"Despite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious",0
"I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.  Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.  And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents ""academic freedom"" and open inquiry.  This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense.",0
"I think I win the ""bargain"" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a ""Martial Arts Movie Classics"" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the ""Black Fist"" version of a movie that was released as ""Bogard.""   For a basic ""revenge"" flick, ""Black Fist"" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal ""rules of thumb"" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got.   The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front ""stamp"" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes.   Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character ""Leroy Fisk"", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even *I* knew (from watching ""Hard Times"" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a ""black brother being repressed"" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).  The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The ""I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him"" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of ""Fisk's"" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.  But, once the movie switches all the way from ""young fighter rising through the ranks"" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing ""a long drive for a short day at the beach""..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way.   If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next ""Rocky"", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams.   Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him.",0
"This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.  Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..  Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays?",1
"In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo.  ""Ai no Borei"" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive ""Ringu"" and the American remake ""The Ring"" use the view of the well from inside in the same angle. The performances and direction are excellent making ""Ai no Borei"" a great movie. My vote is eight.  Title (Brazil): ""O Império da Paixão"" (""The Empire of Passion"")",1
"Korean ""romance"" about the owner of a camera store who is diagnosed with a fatal disease. As he goes about his daily routine and prepares for the end he becomes acquainted with a young girl who is a customer. A friendship and romance grows, eve though neither expresses any sort of affection for the other. Good film is unlike anything you are likely to see remade in America simply because the studios would insist that the ""couple"" act on their feelings. He will not say anything because he doesn't have that long to live, she won't because its not the thing thats done and he is not responding as she thinks he should. Of course its much more complex than I'm making it out to be and in all honesty its the sort of thing that you should discover for yourself. Is it a great film? No, but it is a good one that will move you emotionally. The final lines of the film still haunts me: ""I always knew that love would fade like a photograph - but you will remain in my heart as you are in my last moment. Thank you and goodbye"". It may seem odd out of context but with in the context of the film it is very moving.",1
"I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy.",1
"I saw this film in Wales in July. It deals with the courage of Czech pilots who flew numerous missions for the RAF after their country had been occupied by the Nazis. In this film, the action takes place both in the early 1950's when these pilots are being beaten in political prisons in Czeckoslavakia and during World War II in Britain. They were imprisoned after their return to their homeland because the Communist regime viewed these warriors as a threat to their occupation of Czeckoslavakia. The pilots maintain their dignity in prison and during numerous air battles against Nazi pilots. This film contain a love sub-plot that does make sense because it helps us to understand that both civilians and soldiers made great sacrifices to preserve democracy. The end of this film indicates that the heroism of these Czech pilots was finally recognized in the early 1990's after the restoration of democracy in the country then known as Czeckoslavakia. This powerful and moving film was made with financial support from the Czech government. I highly recommend this film.",1
"A group of friends discover gold deep inside an old mine. But by taking the gold and thinking they've hit it big, they awaken a long dead miner who's Hell Bent on protecting his treasure. ""Miner's Massacre"" is a chintzy b-horror movie in the extreme. You've got all your familiar clichés, your group of intellectually-impaired teenagers, characters going off on their own to investigate strange noises, a few pop-scares, the mysterious sheriff, the old lady who everyone thinks is nuts (Played by top-billed Karen Black no less), and so on. Nevertheless, it's done in an amusing, non-pretentious fashion that makes the film mindlessly entertaining in a ""so bad, it's good"" kind of way. The characters and dialog are what you'd expect from this type of film—familiar, routine and unoriginal. The actors all do a decent job though, considering—I've actually seen bigger-budget films of it's type with worse acting (I know what you did last summer, anyone?) and add a bit of credibility to the film itself. The villain in this film (The 49'er) is obviously derived from the creeper from Jeepers Creepers, all the way down to the brown overcoat, the hat and the long white hair. Like the creeper he never talks, and is butt-ugly to boot. The gore is somewhat disappointing in my opinion. There are a couple of fairly gruesome moments, but too much is off-screen and the death scenes are often laughable (Spoiler ahead!). There's one truly hilarious moment where a girl gets decapitated by the said villain, and to achieve this 'effect', the filmmakers hid the actress's body beneath the villain's coat, with her head poking out, and put some fake blood on her neck. Seriously, you could see the outline of her shoulders! I think they could have done a little better there, even if the budget was low (And I'm sure it was, but, still…). The special effects are cheap but sufficiently effective and for the most part, moderately well done for a low-budget film. Either the effects guys or the director seem to have a thing for explosions and fire. Almost every scene towards the end of the film has at least a couple of characters being burn to death (Always filmed in slow motion) or SOMETHING exploding, be it a car or an old mine cave. Seriously, hasn't anyone ever heard the term; ""Stop, drop and roll""!?!?!?  ""Miner's Massacre"" (Or ""Curse of the forty-niner"", what ever you want to call it) is cheesy and dumb, albeit entertaining, and as long as you don't have expectations through the roof, you'll be sufficiently entertained.   I'm feeling generous, so I'll give it a 4/10.",0
"There I was on vacation when my host suggested we take in this B-Movie festival in Breda. I was resistant, as I hadn't gone on the trip to sit in a movie theater, but I've got to admit that I don't regret a second of this one (especially with Stephen Malkmus' contribution). It probably helped that I had no idea what to expect.  SEA OF DUST starts out like a typical costume drama. We've got a young medical student going to help a doctor whose town is being destroyed by a crazy plague (which somehow involves exploding heads). On the way, he stops to visit his fiancé and gets thrown off the property by her father. Traveling on, he finds a girl lying on the road, another plague victim, and takes her along to the doctor's. Yawn, I thought. It all seemed pretty predicable.  And then everything went crazy and it suddenly turned into a completely different film. Tom Savini shows up looking like Dracula, characters begin traveling to ""the other side"" of reality, and the dialog gets increasingly humorous.  And just when I thought it had settled into a groove, the picture changes again, becoming really dark and bizarre. I won't spoil it for first time viewers, but there's an amazing sequence about hollow people, lots of chat about the abuse of religion by society, and some over-the-top gore effects. And did I mention Stephen Malkmus? This isn't a perfect movie (in case you haven't figured that out from its appearance at a B-Movie festival), but it's well worth the time for adventurous viewers. Great visuals, cool soundtrack, lots of interesting ideas. The acting is a little zany at times, but I think that's the point.  Funny I had to go to Breda to see find an American picture that looked like a British horror movie. You figure that one out...",1
"I adored this, but I am an 80's kid. I loved Rainbow Bright my whole childhood. I don't know if little ones these days would be very interested in the show, mine wasn't. (But thats okay, I bought it for me anyway. I just brought the little one so the guy at the checkout stand wouldn't look at me funny.)I love the non violent drama, and the colorful scenery. It just reminds me of a simpler time before cartoons had more violence than our local news can legally show. :) Although I may be just a little biased on the subject. Afterall I was Rainbow Bright 6 years in a row for Halloween........I wonder if they make a Rainbow Bright costume for adults. Lol.",1
"Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.  Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that ""cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her."" That's the nice ""feel-good message"" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?  I say ""strange"" because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's ""an intelligent thriller."" Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.  Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store.",0
"Have you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his ""comedic"" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, ""been there, done that"" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.",0
"The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his ""Paris Nous Appartient"", I decided this was not to be missed.  Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' ""Seven Against Thebes"" and ""Prometheus"". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.  The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.  There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.  More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than ""Paris Nous Appartient"", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art.",1
"hello there; i would just like to say how much i enjoyed your review and comments about that excellent film 'intruder in the dust'. i believe that the points you made were insightful, intelligent and totally valid. it's also a shame that this film is hardly ever shown on TV these days and that it isn't available on DVD region 2 - i live in england. once again, many thanks for your review. the actor juano hernandez was in another brilliant film, 'young man with a horn', which also starred kirk douglas and lauren bacall. that was a very evocative and stylish film with some superb music. i wish that someone with influence could release the entire back catalogues of films like 'johnny belinda', 'i remember mama', and 'the yearling' on DVD region 2, we love these movies in great Britain. i'm not of pensionable age, i'm still reasonably young and my family and i love classic films!!films like these were so beautifully made and they bring back wonderful memories. anyway...! many thanks for your comments!",1
"As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).  I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.",0
"This movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The ""love"" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the ""AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!"" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!",0
"Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.  Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless ""thriller"" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style ""drive by"" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.  The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.  All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.",0
"You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.  I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.",0
"I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants. It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a better villain than any of those in the previous movie.",1
"Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.  I still think Martin Sheen got ""dissed"" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?  Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.  The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......  Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.  That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.  So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember!",1
"My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.",0
"This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.  The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :)",1
"This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.",0
"Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap.",1
Two Hands restored my faith in Aussie films. It took an old premise and made it fresh. I enjoyed this movie to no end. I recommend it to those people who like Guy Ritchie films. Bryan Brown was fantastic and just about perfect in a role tailor made for him. Ledger was adequtely dumb and his performance anchored a very satisfying movie for me.,1
"OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, ""he's been replaced!!!!"" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)",0
"I just have to say that this was the third worst movie I have ever seen right after the attack of the murder tomato's 3 and starship troopers 2. It wasn't just dialogs or the paper walls or even the guns shots which just automagically disappeared with no holes in the walls. It was the horrible acting. No wonder that I have never seen these actors before they all probably slept with the director(s). I think i'am being nice to this movie now but that is only because i'am to tired from screaming at the movie (just saw it). My advice is to buy as many DVD's of this movie as you possibly can and burn it so no one ever can see this horrible waste of time, money and film ever again.",0
"DeCoteau has to be one of the worst ""directors"" working today in any genre, and it has nothing to do with his movies usually containing homoerotism and having guys run around in their matching boxer briefs. Remember... anyone in tight black underwear is satanic and evil and want to suck out your blood/soul... such deep symbolism here). I just sat through The Sisterhood to give him his fair shakes, I try to watch every horror movie I can and this one had Barbara (FROM BEYOND, RE-ANIMATOR) Crampton in it (I had previously been sucked in to the world of DeCoteau thanks to Linnea Quigley, Adrienne Barbeau and several other actresses I like).  Lemme tell you what about The Sisterhood... Like the other reviewer pointed out, the supposed plot involves lesbian vampires on a college campus. But never has a parade of hot young babes (""actresses"" if you want) running around dressed in bras, panties and bikinis been so boring. The movie has no plot, no gore, no nudity and the dialog is ridiculous and seems like they made it up as they go along. Parts are put in slow-motion and repeated many times to push the running time up. About ten minutes of this one consists of characters just walking around on campus (oh, the excitement!) that looks more like a hotel resort than any college I've ever been to. And the acting is the absolute worst. The only thing these girls do well is lean forward and bend over to show off their bodies. The cast were so devoid of talent that I'd be shocked to see any of them get a one-day walk-on role on Passions in the future. Ditto for the guys. Yeah DeCoteau squeezed more hot guys in underwear in this one, too... Guys who should be in some K-Mart brochure instead of trying to act. Do these people actually have to audition or just show up in Dave's office and take their clothes off? I think the answer is obvious.  I am willing to give any movie a chance if 1.) it's intelligently written, well directed, original and competently acted (or hell, even ambitious and stylish)... Or 2.) it is chock full of gore, nudity, assorted trashiness and/or it's unintentionally hilarious. David DeCoteau's movies deliver NONE of that and they do it on better-than-usual production values for direct-to-video flicks. What a waste! So what is the appeal, especially with the advent of porn of the soft- and hard-core variety that's easily accessible to anyone with a computer? I simply cannot answer that.  DeCoteau is a gay horror director and could use his resources to put a unique spin on the genre. Instead, he produces mind-numbing drivel without an ounce of talent or intelligence shining through. Ironically, when you think about it, his films are anything BUT pro-gay. They actually make homosexuality seem seedy, secretive and sinister. The obviously gay characters in his films are always trying to corrupt, seduce and/or kill off the innocent, sexually-confused leads. There's no shading here to make things interesting. The protagonists are naive and seldom prove themselves to be strong, assertive or confident in who they are. I would understand this plotting if Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps or Dr. Laura starting making direct-to-video horror films, but from a gay director, it just goes to show that he puts almost no thought into these beefcake cheese-fests.",0
"The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary ""De-Lovely"" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for ""Philadelphia"" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more ""Forrest Gump"" than ""Philadelphia"". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.  The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.  Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final ""wedding scene"" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.  The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.  On the whole, a hoot!",1
"This final installment of the ""Airport"" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like ""Airplane"". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.",0
"The box at my video store is why I rented this one. It looked cool from the guys face axed in half so of course I had to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually watched it being an ""Evil Dead"" fan. The Swedish makers must of been fans as well as they included lots of references in this masterpiece. A criminal tries to break into the house Evil Ed was editing the movies that ultimately drive him insane in and says ""groovy"" as he looks at his weapon quite like Bruce Campbell does when he finishes his chainsaw hand in Evil Dead 2. There is also many posters of that movie scattered around the house and office in the movie. They don't just spoof Evil Dead, as there is a Gremlin style puppet monster that cusses at Ed in his refrigerator. My personal favorite is when he chases his wife around the house and says ""I'm coming to get you Barbra"" which in case you did'nt know is Barbra's brothers main line in ""Night of the Living Dead"". This movie pretty much has it all good plot, cool characters, funny stuff (Gremlin puppet),scary stuff (demon doctor), excellent effects (exploding head) and a fair amount of female nudity. I only gave it a 9 because its kind of slow before Ed goes insane but its well worth the wait. So if you liked ""Evil Dead 2"" or any of the other movies I mentioned above you gotta rent and watch it with a freind, and when your done try ""Brain Dead"" because I hear it is similiar to this masterpiece.",1
"What makes this low budget production one of my favorite movies? Not kidding, i was watching it already 10 times or so and did not get tired. Is it the tender melancholia throughout the whole thing? Is it the similarity to classics like ""Niagara""? I was thinking a long time about that. And figured it out: I guess it is: there is no hero, there are only people. Some try to be good. Some gave up trying to be good. Some are hopeless cases but carry still the spunk of being human inside. It is the story of a catastrophic night in a motel at the end of the world. One way the catastrophe is nothing but the end of a chain of coincidences. The other way this night reveals the logical consequents of this peoples lives because they are in a certain constellation cut off the rest of the world. It has something of a Dostoevsky tale.",1
"The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's ""documenatry"" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama ""The Game of their Lives"" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to ""TGOTL"" *** out of ********** on ""Decade"". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve",0
"We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.   When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says ""The United States does not torture"" it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply ""snatch"" you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him.   Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast.",1
"""Everything is Illuminated"" is like viewing a fine piece of museum quality artwork. It absolutely inundates the emotions through a very broad spectrum. Jonathan Safran Foer is played with candor by Elijah Wood. He is in search of his paternal heritage in the Ukraine. His travels bring him in contact with Alex, played very well and with extreme humor by Eugene Hutz. His grandfather is the most emotional tie to this film and he is aptly portrayed by Boris Leskin. If one finds little humor in the human characters in this cinema, then one has only to turn to Mikke, a real dog who is called Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. by Alex and his grandfather. They also call him the ""seeing eye bitch"". The cinematography is spectacular. The colors are a very important part of the patchwork of the film. It is a film worth the time and emotional investment.",1
"Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.  But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.  The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.  So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.  Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have ""No artistic vision – just one big mess"". I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.",0
I saw this movie when I was a lot younger but it captured me. I loved Orry and George's relationship so much. I was so enraptured in Orry and Madenline's love story. I am a hopeless romantic so it really got to me. I especially liked it when he first met her. I just wish he had more time with her and their baby. So you know in Book three I was so hurt that he died. I didn't really understand that because they had little time together. I just loved Patrick in this movie. I just bought all three books together and I can't stop watching them. My 12 year old son is stuck on it. He likes the fighting in the war. I cry every time. I wish I could meet Patrick and Madeline in person! It was a wonderful movie and cast!,1
"After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!",0
"amazing movie. Some of the script writing could have been better (some cliched language). Joyce's ""The Dead"" is alluded to throughout the movie. Beautiful scenery and great acting. Very poetic. Highly recommend.",1
"I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.",1
"I saw this on Sci Fi, and in retrospect, I'm not sure how I actually managed to watch it all the way through. This is utter trash. It's not a B movie, it's a ""D movie"" at best.  Basically this grim reaper looking thing on a horse (and sometimes not on one) goes killing everything in it's path somewhere in the mid west of America. A load of people are missing (infact murdered) and a bunch of mismatched spec op soldier types go looking for them. The best part of this movie, I'll tell it now, is there's some really cute girls. Let me now spoil this by telling you that all but the least cute one get their heads either chopped off, slashed apart, or hit so hard with a mêlée weapon that the head explodes off. That's no spoiler... The gore in this movie is over the top and really grotesque. It serves no real purpose, either.  Here's what's good: The sets look OK, the actors sometimes act OK, The outfits and props, some of them, are decent.  Everything else that you can think of, sucks. A lot of the badness is in the editing. Some times it just switches over from a rapid action scene to a real quiet and dormant scene. Sometimes the characters do non-understandable things, and they're always splitting up, but not even in a way that the viewer can follow. Looks like they get split up without realizing it amongst themselves but they also all seem to know that they're splitting up all the time and are OK with it even tho they're in a really dangerous situation and there's bodies all over the place and people are dying right and left. Nothing in this movie is the least bit plausible, most of it is incoherent and confusing, and I don't really get how this immortal, indestructible bad guy killer was able to be stopped in the end, and frankly, I don't care. Too much stupid, hilariously bad nonsense happens during this movie and I don't really care to list it all here. And they're all so serious throughout the whole ordeal when it's almost laughably bad... just awful.  This movie is a complete waste of time. There's no excuse for watching this, unless the only channel you happen to receive is SciFi and you're bound to a chair in front of the TV. But if you're not bound, you're better off doing a crossword, throwing a Frisbee, or even just thinking. There's lots of much better B movies that you can watch.  My senior year in high school my friend and I, in visual communication and deign class, made a long movie trailer type deal for our own movie (There was no full movie, just a really long trailer) and we did a better job of filming and editing the piece with premiere. It was better work than this movie. That really says something about this and I'm puzzled and troubled as to why Sci Fi would show anything like this when there are so many good low rate movies they can show.  The only movie that I've ever endured that was worse than this is Raptor Island (another brilliant SciFi work)-though it had smoother and more followable flow than this movie- but this comes very close and is definitely 2nd on my list of worst movies I've ever seen.",0
"When I saw this film, it reminded me of all the greatest dreams i had (mostly filled with robots)  I can relate to Eledore's problems and I have a similarity to Shiro, and this is a great film to watch (if you're a Goth who is bitter and eccentric like me!). All in all, watch it before it's out of print!",1
"Two movies: ""the fifth element"", ""armageddon"". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: ""Armageddon"" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, ""Grace"". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the ""fifth element"", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his ""fifth element""'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.  When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.",0
"This film is wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction.",1
"Craig Brewer grew up in Tennessee, it is evident in his movie. Forget the Black guy on White Girl action. It happens, but it isn't Samuel L. Jackson on Christina Ricci. More importantly this movie is about the values and culture of the people in this Tennessee town. How they deal with divorce, abandonment, sexual abuse and psychological disorders. While shrinks make millions in the cities of the North, Midwest and West Coast, the town minister, who also grapples with his own problems, becomes the counselor and mediator. It is a interesting concept and one that may not settle well with everyone.  Brewer shows us the region he grew up in. Yes it is still tainted with racial problems, though worse problems exist in many metropolitan cities. This is in the subtext and not the main plot of the story. People live a more simple lifestyle, yet life is still complex and excruciating.  Jackson and Ricci do a fantastic job in this film. Jackson the aging-former blues guitarist who eeks out a living on his small farm. His wife of 12 years leaves him for his brother, so he spirals into depression. Meanwhile Ricci and Justin Timberlake have a last wild sexually charged night before he ships off to the Army. Ricci suffers from a childhood of sexual abuse, though that isn't revealed until later, her torment can only be quenched by sexual forays with various boys (Black and White) in the town.  When Ricci is beat up and left for dead on the road near Jacksons farm, he finds her and nurses her back to health. He believes it is divine intervention that this half-naked White girl is left in his care. He clutches his Bible and prays for guidance. He refuses her sexual advances and instead treats her with dignity, respect and care. Something few men in her life have ever done.  She in time sees Jackson as a man of honor and morals, yet he also carries his own pain. He plays his guitar and sings to her. Yes it's the Blues and damn good too, With the minister counseling her, she slowly understands how to deal with her childhood sexual abuse. Jackson, through Ricci's transformation, realizes he must let his own pain heal.  Justin Timberlake comes back, discharged due to ""anxiety problems"". As he searches for Ricci, who has been living with Jackson during her recovery, he finds out she has been promiscuous and unfaithful to him.  He finds her and Jackson at a bar, where Jackson has decided (as part of his healing process) to come out retirement and play the Blues again. Timberlake follows them home and confronts Jackson and Ricci.  You will have to see the movie to get the rest of the story. Should you decide to see this film, remember to look at it from the aspect of a foreign or independent movie. It is a slice of life, from a particular region of America that few of us get to see. It is interesting and revealing. It also shows us that regardless of the color of our skin, we all have similar problems that can be fixed with similar solutions.",1
"In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap ""American pestilence"", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of ""The King and I"" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' ""Jaws""), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****",0
"Totally disgusting and cheap bawdy humor. I loved it!!! It is the most disgusting and totally horribly acted film, except for Nicolas Read, who plays an un-dead Court Jester, to comic brilliance. But being that as it may, I laughed so many times and I have to hand it to the film makers, it wasn't pretentious or ordinary in any way. Raping, fighting, zombies vomitting on their rape victims. What other movie has this? Not for the quesy, but with a pizza, a bong, and a six pack of beer, you got it made, if you have a cast iron stomach and a juvenille sense of humor like myself.",1
"One of Starewicz's longest and strangest short films follows a toy dog in search of an orange after becoming animated by the tear of the mother of a girl who longs for an orange. The dog comes upon an orange after falling out of the back of a car on his way to be sold, but at night must protect the orange when he comes enters a devilish nightclub featuring many bizarre and scary characters. With the help of a stuffed cat, the dog gets the orange back to the little girl and she is saved from a terrible scurvy death. The Mascot features new techniques I have not yet seen in Starewicz's films. The addition of sync sound and a mixture of live action with the stop-motion animation makes for a new twist on Starewicz's old style of puppetry. Live scenes of moving cars and people's feet walking by as a puppet sits on the concrete sidewalk is impressive and fresh. The honking of cars and cries of street vendors is noteworthy due to the fact that small studio shifts to sound were costly and Starewicz's utilization of the new technology seems like old hat. New puppet characters in this film are frightening contributions to the devil's club scene. Twigss and newspaper shreds come to life. Skeletons of dead birds lay eggs which hatch skeleton chicks. Characters come flying in from all over on pats and pans and rocking horses. A new editing technique uses quick zooms which are accomplished through editing to speed up the pace of what before might have been a slow scene. Overall, Starewicz is able to update his style of film-making to meet the demands of a new audience making this film one of the best examples of his work.",1
"This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.  Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary.   I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.",0
"If you watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when ""lead robber"" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a ""cool"" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching it.",0
"Watched this months ago on Netflix Instant and left a review there.  Let me say, most of the other reviews are very accurate. This movie was bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. I too, had liked Russell and Pare ""back in the old days"" and was very hopeful for them. In my Netflix review, I mentioned that I lost interest in the film and proceeded to wash the dishes and make a sandwich, yet still watching the movie from the kitchen. When I did return to the living room, I was very confused as the last 5 minutes of the film unfolded. I even rewound it to make sure I was not missing anything. This film totally crapped out on how to do a ""twist"" ending. I suspect that the idea sounded good, maybe the script was intriguing, but the budget was so non-existent that sets were really lacking. And yes, I suppose all those ""bad sets"" were an effort to give the viewer a clue. All it told me was ""low budget.""  Anyway, the reason I came here, was because over the weekend I saw a review of Shutter Island, and with what the reviewers were saying, or not saying, lead me to believe that Shutter Island is the same deal, only with a budget 50 to 60 times more! (Actually I have no idea how much Dark World cost, but I HOPE they didn't spend more than 1 million!)  So, that being said, I kinda thought that if someone reworked the script a bit, got a bigger budget for a better ""look"" (whether that meant a better scenic designer, or better post coloring, just someone with a vision,) they could remake Dark World into a passable product. Now it sounds like Shutter Island is doing that. Looks like they got the vision right, but the scripting could still be off. Money can't buy everything, but it should in Hollywood!  PS My 2 star rating is for Russell and Pare.",0
"For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result – Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).  Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in ""God's domain"" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.",0
"Hummmm,...ANOTHER Keystone comedy set in the park!!! It seems that the number one location spot for shooting was in this same local park, as so many of Chaplin's and Arbuckle's films are set there! And, while this is yet another one, it is different enough and well made that I still enjoyed it.  Fatty is interested in a younger than usual looking and acting Mabel Normand. I think she's supposed to be a little younger, though in her mother's eyes she is TOO YOUNG to be interested in men. Well, Fatty does not share her feelings and soon he and Mabel run away for some innocent fun. Things get complicated when the mother's watch is stolen. Fatty finds it and gives it to Mabel as a gift,...and MANY problems result.  Decent pacing and the fact that this movie did not rely too much on cheap slapstick but a reasonable plot make this a cute and enjoyable little film.",1
"If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of ""The Muppet Show"" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to ""make millions of people happy."" Of course.  Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing ""Movin' Right Along"", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.  The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any ""children's"" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.  This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue.",1
"I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV.",1
"Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.",0
"If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.  It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.  Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.  If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.  There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.  Even the characters are totally unbelievable!",0
"London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby (Imelda Staunton).  One evening, Richard ""The Gentleman"" Rivers (Rupert Evans) pays them a visit.  Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy).  Susan agrees to help for a cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid.  Upon arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life.  As the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship with the lady of the house.  Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters.",1
"I first heard of this movie at the ""Flashback Weekend"" in Chicago 2007 for the ""Nightmare on Elm Street"". Robert Englund was really talking the movie up and he was great in his part of ""Hatchet"". The same can be said for Tony Todd. Knowing this is a low budget first time director / writer it delivers every bit as much as the big budget and also cameo laden ""Holloween"" (2007) remake/re-imagining.  Technically it falls short in a couple of places. The alligator attack seen was shoot too dark. When it happened the dark head of the alligator against the swamp clamping on to the black pants became almost invisible. The mood music in the swamp scenes was too loud in volume and canned, like a bad sitcom. And just like ""Holloween"" (2007) someone is smart enough to have a gun, but of course shooting the killer is only a pause button for the killer. The ending, well, as soon as I saw where it was going I knew what was going to happen, not very original.  The highlights of the movie are the characters and their interactions. Unlike ""Holloween"" (2007) we got to meet the people and care what happened to them. Ben (Joel Moore, who is also the lead of ""Spiral"")the sulking lead and Marcus (""Not Another Teen Movie"")as the best friend and funny man to root for during the movie. Shapiro (Joel Murry ""Dharma & Greg""), Jenna (Joleigh Fioreavanti) and Misty (Mercedes McNab of ""Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Series"", ""Angel: The Series"" and ""The Addams Family"" movies) give a convoluted reason for topless women. Mr. and Mrs. Permatteo played by television regulars (Richard Riehle ""Grounded for Life"", Patrika Darbo ""Step by Step"")as the older couple that you know don't stand a chance, even the tour guide Shawn (Parry Shen) is a fleshed out character. I hope to see more from all involved in this film, but I think it will play better on home video than in the theater, sorry.",0
"I finally managed to see this movie...after so many years of expectancy...  I was so curious to see if this movie it is as bad as some people say..  And my opinion is that this movie it wasn't bad at all,on the contrary it was AMAZING...  I enjoyed every second from it...from the beginning until the end...  The actors were great they sent me the feeling that i was living the story at the same time as the movie was playing...  The landscapes were so beautiful were the film was shot...and it did charmed me.. Also the music was extraordinary and i have nothing  to reproach..  I think that the plot was very original i don't think that i saw a movie like this...  It is a shame that it isn't recognized all over the world..to bad for those who didn't get the chance to see it. i give this movie 10/10",1
This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head),0
"I've rented this gem several times! It's a small, yet somehow sprawling masterpiece taking the viewer from Manhattan glitz to the beauty of the Greek islands. John Cassavetes on-screen marriage to his real-life wife Gena Rowlands is on the rocks. He finds meaning in a fling with footloose Susan Sarandon whom he finds in Greece while their daughter, played in her earliest film role by the pubescent Molly Ringwald, falls for the son of the Greek shipping tycoon who is courting her mother on a yacht sailing in neighboring waters. Meanwhile, the immensely talented Raul Julia plays a goatherd living in a cave with his Sony Trinitron. He has the ""hots"" for Molly Ringwald's character until confronted by John Cassavetes. All comes together at the end in a classic closing scene where all is reconciled. Raul Julia, the goatherd, is seen dancing with his goat. This film is full of mysticism, beauty, young and old love, humor, sexiness, and more. See it!",1
"for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,""The new adventures Of Batman"" is a 3/10,at best.",0
"Many of the earlier comments are right on the money, but some, well, not so much.  This Is hardly a 'B' movie...it's well produced, the live flying sequences are really superb, and the model sequences are first rate. It's no ""cheapie"".  Ricard Barthelmess is quite good in this, and it makes a a nice companion piece for ""Only Angels Have Wings"".  If you want to spot John Wayne, spot J. Carrol Naish first, they end up together.  Tom Browne is juvenile enough (and somewhat dull), but when they saddle him with the most pathetic pencil-mustache in Hollywood history, it makes his character even less believable. Sally Eilers is much more so.  As for later influences, this is Wellman in the early Airliner-in-Distress zone...the opening sequence of this film, with the Airline Operations guy arriving at the ""Grand Central Airport"" would have fit very nicely into ""The High and the Mighty""...just imagine Regis Toomey...and a 1955 Buick.",1
"I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story ""Big Fat Liar"" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the ""Big Fat Liar"" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!",0
"This is the kind of film that might give you a nightmare, besides that it's a lot of fun.  Hardware Wars is the only good spoof on Star Wars, other films like Spaceballs have failed. This is the only good spoof film I have ever seen, it doesn't rip-off Star Wars, it makes fun of it, and that's what spoofs are supposed to be.",1
"Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.  The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.  This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.  All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so ""bad"" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her ""tell your Mom to make some better food"" and ""everybody says it's your mom."" Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it.   I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature!   We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.  I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.)   Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.)   4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.",0
"Lead actor Yuko Tanaka fulfills so much in the exceptionally meditative ""The Milkwoman,"" a tranquil canvass on missed chances in the life of a 50-something woman, charting her routine with sincerely poignant motives. Played out in the picturesque, tranquil town of Nagasaki, Akira Ogata's unconventional romantic film, so to speak, is less a straight-out melodrama than a deliberate introspection of its characters' surrender to their current lives as a result of a tragic past that forced them to a choice they did not call for.  Perfectly embodying the requisite world-weariness subjected to a spiritless routine, Tanaka plays Minako Oba, a middle-aged woman who, before her work shift at a supermarket, takes it upon herself to deliver bottles of milk among the residents of the hilly Nagasaki. One of the houses she constantly passes by to make such a delivery is that of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a local government employee caring for her terminally ill wife (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita were high school sweethearts who, courtesy of an ignominious event concerning their parents, separated ways since then.  Opening his film with the foreboding narration of a young Minako vowing never to leave Nagasaki, Ogata does as such with the narrative, patiently sticking with Minako as he, deftly aided by Tanako's understated yet highly effective performance, follows her -- whether she's having chitchat with her aunt (Misako Watanabe) on being single, or when she jogs up and down the countless footsteps of their hilly town to distribute milk -- as she and Kaita gradually overcome the hindrances that kept them apart for years. Such unhurried development may not suit viewers weaned on fast-paced narratives but for the rest, it's a heartfelt introspection that affects powerfully and emphatically.",1
"A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.",0
"What a crap that movie is. The script is simply non existent. The movie at times seems like a music video. But it cannot even be that since the soundtrack does not really match. Pathetic way of combining action and rap. One might think it being a recipe for a successful flick... here it fails miserably. Dialogues in this flick just killed me. The scene when Harlan is interrogated by some policeman is merely pitiful. Generally speaking, recent Seagals films are hardly watchable. What the hell happened to the guy? I know he's old but can't he get ""Hollywood"" to drop him a decent script or something? Is he running out of dough for his escapades to India that he takes on anything they serve him?",0
"This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.",0
"Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, ""Shoppen"" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.",0
"I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled ""stereotype"" at me.  I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.  I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.  I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.  I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.",0
"This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the ""I am gay"" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.",1
"Rarely have I seen an action/suspense movie that was so boring. None of the action scenes are exciting the story line is nothing special and except for a couple of actors the acting is bad. Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Major League) stars as the White House Chief of Staff, who gets himself in the middle of a conspiracy that wants him and more people dead. Donald Sutherland (A Time to Kill, Fallen) plays a friend who he tells everything he can and Linda Hamilton (Linda Hamilton, Terminator, Dante's Peak) plays a reporter who gets involved in the situation. Charlie Sheen is OK as the star, Donald Sutherland is a good actor who gives a good performance. Linda Hamilton gives a poor performance. With a bad movie, I can actually like it if it has a good ending, but this movie has a very cheesy ending with some almost laughable stuff.",0
"One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid?   Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.  Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the ""23"" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for ""rewrites"".  Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch ""real-life"" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish ""book"" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's ""Sin City"" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.  This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the ""number 23"" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.  I give ""Fingerling - the movie"" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as ""Forsaken"" did or made me downright suicidal like ""Battlefield Earth"" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.",0
"In a not totally successful attempt to be taken seriously, and move into 'adult' films, Mr. Hughes gives us this film about a young married couple. True, it's got every cliche in the book in it, silly fantasy stuff and all that, but more importantly- it's got Elizabeth McGovern.  Clearly the best actress to have ever appeared in a John Hughes film, she lends a weight to it that elevates the sometimes silly material. Kevin Bacon (and his hair) is pretty good as her husband, but McGovern steals the movie with her quiet true moments of honesty. The 'teen film' fun that worked so well in other Hughes films falls flat here- like a favorite uncle whose jokes made you laugh when you were 9, but keeps telling them when you are 15 and you wish he'd find some new material. But I keep going back to McGoverns performance, because it's truly moving. Mr. Hughes most interesting films to me have real actors in them (Some Kind of Wonderful, Breakfast Club) and when his material bumps up against a true talent, some wonderful things can happen. If only he'd trust that it doesn't have to be tarted up with the silly fantasy stuff.",0
"I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth.",1
"Movies like this give independent films a bad name! This simply a boring compilation of vingettes, with no structure whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter was completely stoned. If you want to see a good stoner comedy, watch ""Half Baked."" It's no award-winner, but at least it made me laugh. The film was obviously made on a micro-budget. Every scene either takes place in someone's house, someone's apartment or some outdoor location. If the writing was good and the dialogue was interesting, I would've ignored the film's budget (like in the case of Edward Burns' films), but obviously that's not the case this time around.   I quote Robert DeNiro from ""A Bronx Tale"" when I say, ""There's nothing in the world worse than wasted talent."" Everybody in the cast is talented. Luke Wilson, Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, Jeremy Sisto--all talented performers! And they all have been in much better movies. The actors give it their all, but they couldn't go too far with such a lame script. The only scene I found interesting was Jack Black's cameo, where he sings a song about being in the woods. And of course, there was the brief strip club scene at the beginning, which I also found appealing.   The characters are uninteresting and the story barely exists. Many movies are awful, but at least you understand their intentions. What was ""Bongwater's"" intention? The world will never know.   My score: 2 (out of 10)",0
"This movie is astonishingly poor. It was on television when I tuned in during an action scene and was chuckling away at the cheesy macho dialogue, waiting for Leslie Nielsen to appear. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that it wasn't actually a comedy, it was meant to be taken seriously. What has to be remembered is that somebody actually sat down and wrote this movie, and worse still - other people funded it and gave it the green light.  Rutger Hauer obviously doesn't read movie scripts before he signs up, either that or he has some seriously bad debts to pay.  Strangely, this film is so poor, that you find yourself staring at it, wondering how it actually got funded, and how a TV channel must have paid money for the rights to air it. The dialogue between hero and baddie whilst trying to shoot each other out of the sky is particularly painful, with dialogue sounding like it was generated by a Texas Intruments ""Speak & Spell"".  The Hollywood money machine at it's worst. Funny though.",0
"Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the ""suspense"" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience.",1
"Supernanny Jo Frost, in each episode, gives a family the benefit of her hard-earned experience. But when she's gone will they succeed in sticking to her tough disciplinary rules or do they face a life dominated by unruly children.  Following in the vein of British documentaries ""Wife Swap"" and ""How clean is your house"" Supernanny gives an in depth look into the private family lives of average people, but with the added benefit of practical advice on ways to raise your children.  Jo advocates a tough love style of child care and the now infamous 'naughty step' has come into the popular vernacular in many British homes.  In just three short weeks the families featured were turned from a disorganised house of; sibling rivalry, screaming, kicking, biting kids and fighting parents, to a tranquil calm oasis of family love.  The series when aired gathered huge ratings and critical acclaim and is currently in talks to be reversioned for America.",1
"I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.",0
I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.  P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.  So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.  Is that ten?,0
"Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.",1
"I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.  As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.  ( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )  Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. ""Hi-De-Hi!"" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!.   One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.  I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: ""Lies, Ted! All lies!"".  As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated.   The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating!   With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.  The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.  Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'.   I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers!",1
"please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven",0
"Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really ""get"" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an ""in your face anger."" I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?",0
"Up And Coming was a very positive sitcom, which brought a tool/and or channel that opened the young minds of the Black Culture. The focus and outlook was a message of positivity for our people, and hope for change. I advise this selection for every American household to experience the struggle, and the reward. The show was never given the chance to blossom into the idea of middle-class Blacks becoming business owners of their own. The issue's were so compatible with real life situation's that impacted the lives of so many. I sincerely hope that the entire volume can be restored, and put on DVD for Americans to enjoy with their families.  Thanks.",1
"I see it when I was 12 year old and I dream to see it again !  What marvelous Sammy Davis Jr singing ""it ain't necessarily so !""",1
"Hands down, the best drama/comedy show on television. A cleverly written show about a young mother and her 16 year old daughter exploring life and finding things out not only about the world but themselves too. Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) struggles to find a way to remain in close bond with her daughter but steer her in the right path, which through-out the show is becoming harder and harder. Rory Gilmore (Alexis Bledel) caught in a world of books and learning is just beginning to discover boys and her own sense of rebelliousness, which surprises them both. With the help of Luke Danes(Scott Patterson) and Sookie St.James(Melissa McCarthy) and an enormous variety of other hilarious characters, this show easily remains one of my favorites. What really puts the show over the top is the complex yet, incredible and witty writing often using references from pop culture to the mink dynasty.",1
"This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with ""Platoon"". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.",0
"I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.  The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.  But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.",0
"Post 1988 after the disaster GJS Amitabh's films lost the quality they had earlier   Barring MAIN AZAAD HOON released in 1989 which was a great film rest all films were craps mostly except HUM(1991) later in 1991  This is another of the crap Amitabh films people rejected in early 90's  The film he did like a friendship token to Shashi Kapoor who directed the film and he didn't take a penny The film also had Rishi and Dimple(again not paired opp each other after RANBHOOMI)   The film came in 1991 when Bachchan had 4 releases and 3 flops amongst them INDRAJEET, AKAYLA, AJOOBA   Ajooba came 2 years after TOOFAN and JAADUGAR both supernatural films which were rejected This is another type of crap Bachchan wears a mask and a Krissh type outfit and performs magic changing 1 person to a donkey.etc Of course being 1991 you can excuse the special effects but the film is too bad to be watched  Direction by Shashi Kapoor is not good Music is bad  Amongst actors Amitabh had become too old by 1991 and looked tired, his acting is okay but not on par with his best Rishi is okay Dimple is alright, rest are forgettable",0
"""Shadows"" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until ""The Graduate"".  Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, ""Shadows"" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.  On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. ""Shadows"" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9/10)",1
"As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.  While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully;   all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . .",0
"Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.  Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.  Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!  Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?",1
"i was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.  the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.  first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.  there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.  i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.  if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot's.",0
This is not great cinema. The film is cliche ridden and in many places it is a copy of the original Carrie. The parallels with the original film are striking but with an added improbability about the telekenetic powers being congenital.  I can't say that I disliked the film because it at least passed a couple of hours ... but these were passed as one would read an undemanding book on a long train journey. That book would not be great literature but would absorb one for a while and be forgotten soon afterwards in that it would blend in with the numerous other cliche ridden books. Likewise the film was okay whilst it lasted but is perhaps forgettable. At least I think it is. I cant remember much about it now!!,0
"Oh. Good. Grief.  I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought ""I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad"". Well, I was half right.  This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.  Low-budget does not always mean ""bad"" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.  See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.",0
"Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.  If nothing else ""The Beguiled"" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.  Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play ""Wanda June"". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle ""Randolph"", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.  Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in ""You're a Big Boy Now"".  Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in ""The Misfits"", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.  Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the ""Most Wanted"" television series and the only reason to watch ""Wild Wild West Revisited"". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.",1
"I share the same opinion regarding Underworld as the previous comment.  I sat through the 1.5 hours of this movie wondering what this story was all about and more importantly why the author and/or director had made certain decisions for the plot. On the whole I found the movie to be unbalanced, consisting of strange sub-plots which (IMHO) actually had nothing to do with the movie. Furthermore, when writing a thriller I'd say you want your viewers to wonder about the story and not about the way the story is filmed...",0
"I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, ""The Mascot"" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is ""Vampyr"". ""The Mascot"" isn't a ""bonus feature""-- it's tacked on as a chapter in ""Vampyr"". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I""m at it, ""Vampyr"" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.  Dude A: ""We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!"" Dude B: ""Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter."" Dude A: ""You're awesome, Dude B."" The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.  Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be ""Criterionized"" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5.",1
"The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are ""changed"" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they ""changed"" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary ""supporting role"" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is ""based upon,"" the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.",0
"""The Cave"" got released more or less simultaneously with the English film ""The Descent"", directed by Neil Marshall. Both movies share a similar premise; only ""The Cave"" is dreadfully unoriginal, unexciting and incompetent compared to the splendid horror adventure that is ""The Descent"". It feels like Neil Marshall realized that the basic story was too poor and instantly added ingenious ideas, depth and a personalized style, whereas ""The Cave""-director Bruce Hunt simply went for the most rudimentary elaboration of the screenplay that was thrown on his desk. The result is an unbelievably mediocre film that features every single horror cliché you can think of and in which most of the violence happens off-screen. And we all hate that, don't we? The story introduces a clique of insufferable cave-divers that become trapped in a completely undiscovered Romanian underground ecosystem. Hideous winged creatures, that also happen to be parasites, soon attack them and escape seems impossible due to a landslide. The first half hour is still mildly entertaining if you keep yourself busy with spotting all the clichés and listening to the cheesy textbook dialogs, but the whole thing just gets too dire. None of the events are even slightly plausible and it looks like the entire cast is competing with each other to deliver the WORST performance. I've seen better special effects in anonymous B-movies already, the filming locations aren't used to the fullest and the ending downright sucks! Very much NOT recommended!",0
"Duchess and her three kittens are enjoying the high life with their devoted human mistress until the wicked butler Edgar, with his eyes on a big inheritance, decides to dope them and get them out of the picture. How can these fragile creatures cope in the unfamiliar countryside and the meaner streets of Paris? Only by meeting the irrepressible alley cat O'Malley, a rough diamond with romance in his heart. After they get a taste of the wide dangerous world, he guides them home, and Edgar gets his just desserts at the wrong end of a horse. As always, it's really the voices rather than the animation that are the heart of the Disney magic: Phil Harris is brilliant as O'Malley, Eva Gabor as Duchess is... well... Eva Gabor; but perhaps the most memorable turns are by Pat Buttram and George Lindsay, who turn the old hounds Napoleon and Lafayette into a couple of bumbling Southern-fried rednecks. Their scenes with Edgar, and the musical numbers with Scat Cat and his cool-dude band, are classic. Most striking about seeing The Aristocats now is how deeply Disney's style of animation has changed since this was at the cutting edge in 1970. Perhaps the nostalgic, dated feel are just a result of being plonked down in Belle Epoque Paris, but the illustrations are fussier (a pity) and the animation and overall pace much less frenetic (sometimes a relief) than in more recent efforts such as Aladdin.",1
"(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch ""Dungeons and Dragons"" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that ""Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2"" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as ""Son of the Mask"".""BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as""Son of the Mask"" and also contains way too much CGI!!  Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!",0
This is a true gem of corny sci-fi! Peter Cushing adds a great personality to this midnite movie classic.  I particularly like the sound design. The weird choppy voices of the creatures and the rhino creatures all provide a bizarre backdrop (Of course the scantily clad babe doesn't hurt either!),1
"Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.",0
"The film has no connection with the real life in Bosnia in those days. Should be more realistic and shows the viewer real traumas that were happening to common people during the war. Please see some films of Yugoslav authors (Emir Kusturica, Ljubisa Samardzic,...e.g. Bure baruta( A barrel of powder), Tito i ja (Tito and me), Lepa sela lepo gore (Beautiful Villages burn Beautiful), etc... Just this is the real way to know about so called Bosnian problem. Hollywood is definitive not th right address to make films about the Balcan peninsula. Maybe Vietnam, WW II,... but not of the Slavs living in former Yugoslavia.",0
"This show is awesome! I love all the actors! It has great story lines and characters. It is the perfect drama. James Caan and Josh Duhamel have great dialogue. They both can be really funny.I miss Vanessa Marcil on General Hospital, but she's great on here. James Lesure is great! He can be hilarious. Molly Sims plays a dimwit very well. The writing is awesome!They keep up an excellent pace. The show can really leave you hanging, which is one of my favorite elements of a show. I cannot wait until the new season starts. This show makes it to the top ten of all my shows. I hope this show stays on for a really long time. If people know what good is, it will. I never want the show to end. Ever.",1
"I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.  (Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her ""love"" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.  (Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.  One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the ""bitch's dance"". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.",0
"As a zombie fan, I really love these types of plots where people end up in strange places surrounded by wicked monsters! PB is also an excellent tie-in to Chronicles of Riddick (COR). The gang has to run as fast as they can away from darkness. There are so many metaphors in the story! Riddick is this bad guy, but he's also the hero who tries to save the slow-paced folks. The Muslim guy, Imam, relies on the sun's positions for the five times a day prayers, but he is stuck in a land where darkness will rule. Overall, I recommend this film to any sci-fi fans. You won't be disappointed.",1
"Even after all these years, this remain ""a perfect movie"" for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip ""invites"" Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church.",1
"Some twenty or so years ago, Charles Bukowski was a hero of mine. I blindly accepted the image that was created by intellectual types and seen in various films. Of course, I never got to meet the intellectual types that prescribed Bukowski as a hero. They usually could be found safely behind the counter at hipster video stores and record shops. These people hardly talked and when asked a question, usually sneered and nodded in some vague direction. They were useless when it came to locating a specific title, but their shelves were always stocked with strange and unique titles. To be inducted in the secret hipster club, I believed I had to shed my bourgeois up-bringing and espouse the counter-culture.  My introduction to Bukowski started with the movie Barfly, the late 80's film that starred Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunnaway. I was a fan of Rourke at the time. He also embodied a sort of modern male fantastical anti-hero, a brooding intellectual type. At the time, this appealed to me. Barfly's hero scoffed at convention. A mid-30's tramp, who lives life with no ties, answers to no one, --Oh--and to be recognized as a genius by a hot female literary snob, icing on the cake. Afterwards, I read Post-Office and Hollywood, the later being Bukowski's take on his experience with the film.Now, allow me to fast-forward to the latest film based on Bukowski's book Factotum, one which I read and enjoyed. Bukowski takes the form of Chinaski in this novel. I often wonder where Bukowski ended and Chinaski began. 20 years after Barfly, the fictional movie Bukowski is still the same. I have watched about an hour of the movie and I have yet to see signs of the facade cracking. Here is why Factotum Bukowski was my hero. Chinaski is handsome (played by Matt Dillon). He has clean neat hair, styled, but not over the top. When Dillon smokes and writes, he looks cool. Chinaski goes from job to job, ignoring and/or fighting with various bosses. He screws two floozies, one of whom he lives with, walks out on, only to return to with little repercussion. Chinaski is his own man and we never see him emote. He's a sterile, one-dimensional, 30 something, James Dean archetype. Factotum lies to the viewer. It does so by haranguing the idea of a man (a writer) without consequence. A poor man, who's suffering for his art. What could be cooler than that? Now, let's say there are some truths to Factotum, in that the events took place. What the audience is missing is the pain that shrouds Chinaski's existence. Maybe the point of this movie, and most movies, is that for 80 mins., we need to escape the world that's filled with consequence and pain and take-up vicariously with an anti-social womanizer, that smokes, talks, drinks with detached coolness. One who rejects conventional behavior of job and family. My hero used to be Movie Bukowski. Long ago, that would have worked. It was easier then. Now, I have yet to claim a hero. Things are not as easy. Hipster logic and movie renditions of counter-culture icons offer no solutions or even ask questions.",0
"Seriously, this film is not. Steve Guttenburg is constantly forcing his tough-guy dialogue and then giving everyone the evil-eye all the time. He just wasn't believable, he seems like he's trying to be a badass and he sucks at it. I just remember him as the millionaire dad with the Olsen twins in It Takes Two...so, this is a BIG change. I rented this film for Sean Bean, and he dies (as usual). Only this time he didn't get impaled on a boat anchor (Patriot Games), smashed by a giant satellite dish (Goldeneye), or get run over by cows(The Field). He just got shot, real quick-like and civil, and that was all I got from this film that they didn't kill him off in an extremely grotesque and morbid way. How sad is that? I was only watching it for the 3 seconds that Sean was in it, and then the rest was rubbish. I actually tried to watch and understand the plot, but there really wasn't one. Seemed a little like Mission Impossible with the hole,""Oooooo! There's a mole! It's the leader of the group, and NO ONE EXPECTED IT! Let's trap him! Let's frame the underdog good-guy so we can get away with it!"" Cliched and tired, this movie was a waste of time.",0
"Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a ""black movie"" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.  Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.  I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!  I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...",0
"While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving ""black skeletons"" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.",0
"A vehemently cynical, sarcastic and intense film, mocking and imitating the style of Pulp Fiction and stylized gangster films, Thursday is an entertaining, off-putting and hilarious thrill-ride. An amazingly eclectic mix of over-the-top characters and bizarrely entertaining situations, this day-in-the-life of a gunman trying to go straight proves to be a worthy addition to the series of films that attempts to mimic the genius of Tarantino's dark-humored masterpiece Pulp Fiction.  Nick (Aaron Eckhardt) stops by Casey's (Thomas Jane) house to catch up on old times. Casey was a former gunman for drug dealers who has since reformed, become an architect, married a successful businesswoman (Paula Marshall), and is now contemplating adopting a child. Nick, who still has ties to the gangster underworld, leaves a briefcase full of drugs at Casey's house while he borrows his car to run a few errands… a.k.a. unfinished business. Disgusted and angered by the introduction of drugs into his home, Casey flushes them all down the kitchen sink. That's when, one at a time, Nick's double-crossed accomplices, rapping Rastafarian drug messengers, and crooked cops all come a-knocking for the unsuspecting Casey, who is about to have one unbelievable Thursday.  The film opens with a hilarious sequence in a gas station in which Nick is looking for the best deal for a cup of coffee. After pondering which size cup to get, a fiasco breaks out with the cashier when he demands a free snackie cake and uses a $50 bill to pay. Resulting in comically brilliant bloodshed, the situation goes from bad to worse when a cop intervenes and is caught in the most unusual of circumstances. This opening segment establishes the perfect mood for the rest of the film, which never takes itself too seriously and includes outrageous characters that seem self-aware of their own existence in this nonsensical gangster flick.  The film is broken into segments based on various events and times during the course of one day. This effect is much like Pulp Fiction, which is a similarly given chapters, although Thursday doesn't mess with chronological order except for the occasional flashback. Also like Tarantino, music magnificently introduces each scene and each character. Oddly humorous creatures, such as the Jamaican hit-man pizza delivery guy that raps over the phone and shares his hashish, and Paulina Porizkova's narcissistic Dallas, who attempts to rape Casey, add humor to each event regardless of how horrifying and unnerving some of the coincidences are. When Mickey Rourke's calmly spine-chilling crooked cop Kasarov is introduced, the careful staging and intricate setup is fully assembled, and Casey's sticky situation becomes even more daring and laudable.  Definitely a wannabe Pulp Fiction, with plenty of violence, witty dialogue and extremely creepy antagonists, Thursday does some things right, but other attempts at homage may be going just far enough as to suggest rip-off. A flashback sequence that shows Casey shooting up baddies and sporting a hairstyle that exactly matches John Travolta's do in Pulp Fiction is easily one step too far.  - Mike Massie, www.MoviePulse.net",1
When I saw this movie i expected it to be a cheesy American movie done on the cheap with appalling actors. I was really surprised to find that i was totally wrong. The movie centres around Bartely or B who has been rejected from all of his colleges- the actor who play B is very natural and makes his character seem real- and decides to create a pretend school so his parents stop harassing him. However loads of people see his fake website and join. Feeling their sorrows B can't turn them away much to the chagrin of his best mate. The college is the ideal place with you learning what you want or doing nothing. The school faces opposition from the proper college which ends up closing it down. The film ends on a high and i recommend you watching it. Its does have it flaws but it is a feel good cheerful film with a few unpredictable twists.,1
"I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini. Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the most hyped performances were also the worst.  Costumes and production design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and Auteuil).",1
"Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC.",1
"In the groovy mid 70's a scruffy bunch of brash young Venice, California adolescents from broken homes and the bad side of town known as the Z-Boys turned the previously staid world of professional skateboarding on its ear with their fierce punk attitude, radical unconventional riding style, and unbridled spirit of pure in-your-face aggression, revolutionizing the sport in the process and paving the way for the many extreme variations on sports that popped up in their influential wake. Director Stacy Peralta, who's one of the legendary Z-Boys himself, relates the incredible exploits of this amazing ragtag crew in a ferociously punchy and visceral manner that's both informative and wildly entertaining: the snappy rapid-fire editing, ceaseless speedy pace, and raw, gritty photography deliver one hell of an infectiously kinetic buzz, projecting a sense of sheer joy and full-on bustling energy that's a total pleasure to behold. Better still, this documentary neither sanitizes nor romanticizes its subjects: These rough'n'scrappy lads were so fiercely competitive and out for themselves that they all went their separate ways when the lure of fame and fortune manifested in their lives. The ultimate fates of certain guys is poignant and heartbreaking, with gifted and spontaneous ace skateboard rat Jay Adams rating as the saddest and most tragic: He blew his chance at the big time and wound up doing time in jail. The other dudes are very colorful and personable as well; charismatic ball of cocky and defiant fire Tony Alva in particular comes across as one arrogant, yet impressive piece of furiously assertive work. Marvelously narrated with delightfully easy'n'breezy nasal nonchalance by Sean Penn. The terrific rock soundtrack likewise seriously smokes. But what really makes this documentary such a winner is its refreshing complete dearth of pretense: It's every bit as dynamic, exuberant and larger-than-life extraordinary as the gloriously outrageous Z-Boys themselves.",1
"Here's what's good about ""The Slaughter Rule:""  --Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.  Here's what's bad about ""The Slaughter Rule:""  --Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-""feel good"" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.  I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out ""The Believer.""  My score: 2 out of 10.",0
"I saw this movie a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about ""victimless"" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.",0
"Is this a bad movie? Don't take my word for it. Consider the following press reports of people who tried to watch this movie:   · While he was watching this movie, the brain of Mr. Harold Faber of Sandusky, Ohio, forcibly ejected itself from his skull at over 200 kph and preceded to squirm across the floor shrieking NOOOO NOOO NOOOO.  · Mrs. Louise Robbins of Enid, Oklahoma, a 69-year-old retired homemaker, committed ritual seppuko with a butter knife while watching this movie.  · Ms. Janine Hosmer of Columbia, South Carolina, gave birth to a severely deformed baby while watching this movie, although she had not been pregnant.  · While watching this movie together, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Wells of San Franciso, California, spontaneously exploded with such force that Mr. Wells's left tibia was later found embedded in the wall of a house in Marin County.  There have been many similar incidents.  Of those who did not suffers more serious effects such as those detailed above, at least 75% became incurably, violently, and understandably insane after viewing this movie. Of the remaining 25%, most had already been insane before viewing the movie; the remainder were either blind and/or and deaf or in a persistent vegetative state.  I'm not saying don't rent it, if you want to. I'm just reporting what was in the papers.",0
"The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.",0
"MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.  The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as ""Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites"" and ""Odette, Where is thy sting?""  Only for Garbo fans.",0
"I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters – like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.",0
"""Head"" is one of those films you'll have a lot of trouble convincing your friends to see, but once they do they'll fall in love with it. I don't know how many times this has happened to me. This film is just so funny and bizarre, really a deconstruction of everything the Monkees had been up to this point in their career. A lot the credit goes to Bob Rafelson who pretty much ended the Monkee's career with this film. My guess is he wanted to get out of directing the TV show and get into features, which he did in a big way after this one. Micky Dolenz is absolutely hilarious. I can't believe he didn't have a second life as a comic actor after this film. This film has a lot of great cameos and a lot of wonderful psychedelic nonsense. I feel like the reputation of this film is continuing to build and it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes a full on cult classic",1
"Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...  It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.  Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...  Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!  Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)",1
"I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.  If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.",0
"I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film.   If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.  Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!",0
"This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.",0
"Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier, Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful, full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best.  Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete -- that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind.  Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials.  At 3 hours and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again, if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare lovers and scholars.",1
"I am an avid movie watcher and I enjoy a wide variety of films. However, I found NO enjoyment in this movie. It is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I do not feel that it had much of a storyline, the characters were not likable and the relationship between the characters was dysfunctional at best, and the ending only made me dislike the movie more. It is definitely not in the same category as ""The Cave"" which was, in my opinion, the best cave movie ever made. Even ""The Descent"" was better than this movie.  It was a waste of the $3.79 rental fee and of my time to watch this. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one.",0
"First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.  I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.  So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music ""repugnant"" care to comment at all?",1
"The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.  Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.  This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL",0
"Norma Shearer dazzles as she is transformed from a frump, addle-brained house-wife to an alluring potential divorcee. Most 1930 films have a creaky edge to them -- the camera work is pretty sluggish at times -- but we must forgive these all-talking pleasures for their thump-a-long ""qualities"". As a guest of the eccentric globe-trotting Marie Dressler -- Shearer mixes with an odd assortment of lovelorn types, including her long-lost husband. The dialogue is fun, oft-times clever and the performances on cue. Shearer and Dressler shine the most. Shearer even shows off her piano expertise in a musical brevity. Her strange, yet appealing posturing and ""affair with the camera"" are evident throughout -- and she hits every emotional note, genuinely and on target. For its time . . .a good show.",1
"I loved this film! Markie Post is really great in it. I saw it on lifetime, and it's in the same entertaining class as films like: 'The Betty Broderick Story', 'Locked Up: A Mother's Rage', etc.... {which, by the way, are also very good, entertaining films!} It's an over the top drama, about a single mother who tries to break away from her middle-class, predictable personality. This movie is just pure entertainment! It doesn't have to be a realistic look at heroin addiction. But, it does show how any ""regular"" middle class person can (& they do!) get addicted to heroin. Junkies aren't just homeless uneducated people on the street. {By the way, if you do watch it, check out how the kid bosses his mother around! Spoiled!} 8 out of 10 stars.",1
"Even if Voskhozhdeniye was your favorite film it would only be possible to watch it, at most, every ten years. Its just too emotionally strenuous.Widely regarded as Shepitko's finest film, THE ASCENT is the story of partisans operating in the Byelorussian forest in the dead of winter in German occupied Soviet Union.  While assaulting the audience with the sheer physicality of the wartime experience, particularly the privations of cold and snow, the actual struggle for survival against both nature and the fascists, there is always a subtle, barely inferred sub-text of moral judgment and the question about whether a man can be moral or immoral in one context but otherwise in another.  A partisan group hiding in the woods is attacked by a German patrol and loses their food supplies. Two men, Rybak, who knows the area, and Sotnikov, a Jewish schoolteacher, are assigned the task of going to a small village for food. They find the village burnt to the ground with nothing edible and nothing more than charred timbers and foundations in which in one cubby hole there's a children's mirror hidden. The overwhelming feeling is that whoever brings the brutality of war to a land and a people become truly cursed. I thought of the war that the Americans and British brought to Iraq and about how bringing the horrors of war to people is the act of a degenerate nation.  The two move on to a nearby larger village where they obtain, under duress, a lamb from the collaborator headman. The German's arrive and the two partisans escape under fire. Sotnikov is hit in his foot and holds off the German's as Rybak gets away with the lamb. Sotnikov becomes so desperate that prepared not to be taken alive he removes his boot in order to put a bullet into his head. Just then Rybak returns and drags Sotnikov out of the line of fire.  Rybak drags Sotnikov through the forest, bloody meter by meter all done in one long take. Each meter is an agony and yet he still pulls him through deep snow, up ridges, across depressions, over black bush stumps which crack as they snap under the weight of the men. There are several similarities to the cinematic vocabulary of Tarkowsky here - the long takes documenting a process, the effect of using repetition, and the resulting emotional stress which builds the longer the shot goes on. In the background, unnoticed because of the action, there hangs a question- did Rybak commit an immoral act by going back for Sotnikov? Whether under the moral standards of Marxist-Leninism or merely the common imperative of the survival of the group, wasn't his duty to get the food back to his starving band and leave Sotnikov to cover his escape? To sacrifice one man in order for the group to survive? Which leads to the question - Can a man who is immoral under one philosophical system be expected to be moral under a different moral system? The partisans come as if another curse of war to a farm house containing a woman with three small children. She is embittered by the scourge of war and barely hanging on with her three children. They are barely rested when more Germans show up. They make their way to leave and are directed to the loft to hide.  Sotnikov's cough gives them away. When a German pops his head in to have a look and no one responds he threatens to fire across the loft and Rybak's nerves break and they are captured. Now who has the moral responsibility here? Sotnikov for coughing or Rybek for cracking? The two partisans and the mother are trussed up and taken to a nearby town passing ominously under a wrought iron arch at the entrance. They find the headman and a small girl already in custody. They are interrogated by a turncoat Byelorussian played by Tarkowsky favorite Anatoli Solonitsyn. Sotnikov keeps his head during interrogation and torture and only asks what the interrogator's prewar profession was? He doesn't answer but from his ease standing behind a desk the likely answer was 'schoolteacher'.  Rybak on the other hand begs for his life and even offers to join the police. The previously unnoticed character defect, making a 'wrong' moral decision, the ambiguity (sentimentality) of which disguised it from judgment, now becomes obvious, unsettling and very ugly.  The five sit in a dark cell. They are all scheduled to die the next day. From here the elements of a Christian parable become stronger. Genuine Rembrandt lighting and compositions are used as other Old Master poses of Christ are represented. He decides he can save everyone if he takes on the guilt for everyone. He must be kept alive until morning so he can save everyone. He asks the mother for forgiveness and the headman knowing what is taking place doesn't feel such despair at dying uselessly as he did before.  Morning comes. The Germans don't care if Sotnikov takes on all of the sins of his companions or not. They will all be hung. They trudge up a steeply inclined street which is a virtual Via Dolorosa. A bench is taken up to the site of execution which is the gateway to the town. Five ropes hang from it. The bench only stands three, so Sotnikov stands on a tree stump which Rybak kicks out from under him. They all are hung.  As Rybak descend the road with the Germans, someone in the crowd calls him a Judas, an unnecessary allusion, Shepitko's only misstep. Rybak imagines several times being shot in the back trying to escape, dying an honorable death and tries, unsuccessfully, to hang himself in the shithouse, but leaves with the Germans as the beaten dog he is. However if Rybak was morally right to go back and save Sotnikov's life, is he wrong to try to save his own life?",1
"Horrible acting with the worst special f/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.  To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing ""work""! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.",0
"""What's his name?"" ""Loudon."" ""Loudon what?"" ""Clear.""  That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.  I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.  Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.  Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.  Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.  This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.  Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.",1
"In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line ""The Matrix just got Deadler!"", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called ""Expect to Die"" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says ""Beablier"". Anyway.  To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.  Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.",0
"Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.  I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.  The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy.   I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake ""phone"" voice when greeting clients.  I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.  I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.",0
"I was kinda surprised by the PG rating on the back of the DVD case. I certainly wouldn't want my kids watching this one. I think this would scare the crap out of a 10 year old.  Plot: A girl trying to fit in to the clique is hazed and tormented by the 'in crowd.' They talk her into spending the night in this creepy mausoleum (that reminded me of Phantasm...) and they proceed to torment her in the night. Little do they know, a recently deceased clairvoyant is coming back to life and raising the dead around them! It sounds awfully cheesy, but given the age and the budget, which was no doubt pretty small, this film is fun on many levels.  Watch for an early EG Daily as one of the in crowd brats. I enjoyed it and it scared my girlfriend.  7 out of 10, kids.",1
"A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no ""I"" in ""team""!  I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent ""Meet the Spartans"" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!  Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked ""Date Movie,"" ""White Chicks,"" ""Epic Movie,"" and ""Little Man""! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.  On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.  I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.",0
"Being advertised as the most expensive movie ever made in the Czech Republic, it automatically makes the you think it will be over glorified and clichéd (out of fear of the budget). However with a budget of 8 Million and half the movie in English it was not exactly a big budget, high risk movie.  What we have a grand epic tale centered around the friendship of two people, the younger Karel and the older Frantisek . As pilots in the Czech air force when the Germans invade before the beginning of world war II they escape the country to England to joined the RAF.  Their friendship becomes strained through the love of the same woman. However there is a bond of friendship that goes beyond merely being friendly. Their friendship is an elegant metaphor for the attitude of the Czech people and their country. Remember they were not the winners, the defeated the Germans only to be invaded by the Russians.  Funny, exciting, intriguing, beautiful, sad and illuminating this movie is one of my favourite war movies. Most of all I like the way they make fun of the British in a way that is amazingly affectionate and gives an amazing insight into the way the British military fought WWII.  Forget the recent American efforts (Peal Harbour, Saving Private Ryan), this is the best WWII movie for a long time.",1
"THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, ""ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie."" Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985).",0
"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.  The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.  A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that ""It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.""",1
"It's too bad iameracing wants to deny the reality of Faulkner's and Clarence Brown's purpose in the creating of the story and film of ""Intruder In The Dust"". I suppose the burden of a history of racism is difficult for any Southerner to bear and I can understand that. But to say that this film was not specifically about racism is ridiculous and inaccurate. YES (to borrow your use of the upper case) iameracing, there are many many many places where blacks and white people in the South get along quite well. But to deny the way that black people were and sometimes still are forced to live, the conditions and injustices they have had to endure are not imaginary. Sometimes black and white people got along because of genuine affection and understanding. Sometimes it was only as long as blacks 'knew their place'. The point of making Juano Hernandez character (in film and print) a somewhat prickly type, not warm and fuzzy, was to underscore the fact that bigotry is wrong in and of itself and human rights are just that for everyone regardless of whether we like a particular individual or not.   It would do iameracing good to stop denying the existence of racism and the great harm it has done to Americans of all stripes. The fact is that black people (among others) did not, as a rule, not an exception, receive the benefits of the justice system as even-handedly as whites. Segregation, discrimination and lynching are historical fact. People like iameracing might claim these things were not as widespread as some think and would probably love to exonerate their ancestors and heroes from any connection with such behavior. It would be a wonderful thing if iameracing's Southern ancestors (if any)never participated in any of the horrible racist actions that mar this country's history and I hope they didn't. If that is so congratulations to them but that fact, if true, does not erase the fact that others did. And even if the horrible things that were done to blacks in the South (and other areas, let's not forget the Draft Riots of the Civil War Era)were only half as numerous, only a third, does that make them any less horrible? Is the murder of ten children the hanging of ten men the sexual assault of ten women any less horrible than the same things happening to a hundred?   Iameracing asks us to get the ""Mississippi Burning"" chip off of our shoulders before we see ""Intruder In The Dust"", well I ask you, did the murders of the civil rights activists happen or not? Why should that be forgotten? Forgiven? Maybe. But in order to prevent their recurrence they cannot be forgotten or revised into minor occurrences. The racism that is displayed in ""Intruder In The Dust"" is displayed there quite purposely. It is there to make a point.   On a cinematically historical level it is also ridiculous for iameracing to discount the racial angle. Any viewer of films that were filmed before the 1960's knows that black actors/characters/extras were usually deliberately cast. To judge from our movie history; wars were always fought by middle aged white men; There were no black people in the Old West; it was possible to walk down a street in a major city and never encounter a black person; there were no black hospital orderlies,taxi drivers,clerks, salespeople etc. Blacks were almost never cast with regard to a role unless race was a factor. If Falukner (and Brown) had wanted to tell a simple murder story he probably would not have made the Hernandez character black.   Racism exists iameracing. Probably for different reasons I am sure, we both wish that it didn't but it does. Wanting things to be the way we would like them to be probably can't be helped but it still does not make them so.",1
"I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.",0
"Punishment Park is a pseudo-documentary made by Peter Watkins. The premise is that the nation's dissidents (hippies, musicians, protesters, pacifists, etc.) are being rounded up and tried by a tribunal and then given the choice of prison or running the course of Punishment Park. It's a 52 mile grueling trek through the desert to an American flag, with police, National Guard, and various other authority figures in pursuit. The idea is, that if you make it to the flag, you're set free. The tribunal consists of a bunch of conservative types, all condemning any behavior that is not like their own, and there is no result except a prison sentence or the option of ""Punishment Park"" for any of those on trial. There are a lot of things in this that still ring true today, which is quite disturbing in itself. The people running the course are promised water at the half-way point, which isn't true, and the pursuing officials are mostly a sadistic bunch that are just out for a bit of target practice. This is not a very graphic film but it's more shocking in its ideas and themes than anything else. The scary thing is, it could happen. Not a very upbeat film but definitely worth seeing. Warning: it might make you angry. 9 out of 10.",1
"I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.  I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.  Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box / marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he ""pulled"" himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet point—and did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor / performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.  As to the unfortunate (yes—""tragic"" would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for long—assuming it ever made it into VHS / DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as ""The Regard of Flight"" are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.  Oh, yeah—our local library did get a copy of ""The Regard of Flight."" And yes—it was stolen.",1
"I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.  As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.  Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.  Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10",0
"Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;).",1
"This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and I used to think it never really got its due. That is until I read the glowing reviews here. It seems many feel the same as I did when I first saw it.  It's a damn creepy film, and I've spent most of my life watching creepy films. I've always found dolls, mannequins and such damn creepy! Check out the dolls in ""Beyond the Door"" and of course the great ""Trilogy of Terror"". And what about the magnificent Twilight Zone episode ""Living Doll"". Hell, dolls are creepy! And Tourist Trap has some moments that will make your hair stand on the back of your neck. All aided by an excellent soundtrack that just makes Connors' performance even more heart-pounding.  I remember seeing the trailer to this film on late night TV and thing, ""Wow, I gotta see that!"" It was memorable. And it's one of the only trailers I remember seeing as a kid that creeped me out. Took me years to see it, but it was a treat.  Stephen King also mentions this film in his ""Danse Macabre"" book, and gives it a glowing recommendation. Pretty good company.  This film will always be high on my list of must-sees. It's a real solid addition to the genre of the time and deserves place alongside the best of the 70s schlockers.",1
"When I first watched this film, I thought that it would be rally good, because it featured my favourite actor of all time. He gives a sterling performance, though it is fairly obvious he didn't have to life more than half a finger to make the róle work. He is the only good thing in it, unlesss you're into explosions and American dream-working class hero trash (which I'm not).   I don't get it. How can this film get away with being so naf. That bit with the little boy being rescued, I mean, come on! You can't tell me that he would have been rescued without the fire-guy wearing any goggles (I know for a fact that it would have been pitch black in there and you can't see for more than a couple of feet infront of you) and no breathing equipment (he'd have choked after 2 minutes!). This film was just bad, OK?  Why Robert? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!  Sorry if this is your favourite film.",0
"Although this movie doesn't have the darkness of the books, it is in my opinion a great movie. It's great campy fun with the beautiful Stuart Townsend as Lestat. He may not have the blond hair and blue eyes that are so vividly described in the book, but to be fair, he would not look good with blond hair, and Lestat is most definitely about looking good. He moves like the predator I always imagined Lestat would have.   The visual effects are pretty good, and the soundtrack is absolutely amazing. It's not Interview with the Vampire, so don't try to compare the two. Interview is Louis' story. This is a cut and paste version of Lestat's. In any case, I highly recommend.",1
"Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking ""surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on"", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.   The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!  Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.   Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.  There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.",0
"I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.  I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!  Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.  Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.  This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around.",1
"My taste in films continues to astound me and probably infuriate readers of my reviews but to each their own and I have a weak spot for crazy horror, slasher flicks and See No Evil happens to be exactly that and more!! I think that the biggest mistake made by producers and film makers of this film is that they hype it as a WWE film and ""starring"" KANE. WWE might have a big following but it's a very, very specific group that follow the incredibly cheesy and (sorry folks) kind of trailer park ""sport"" and those who don't love it HAATTTE IT!! It would make them steer clear of an otherwise typical gory slasher flick that people would come out in droves to see. See No Evil doesn't break ANY new horror ground, it's exactly play by play typical horror with some over the top, horrific bloody scenes that honestly make your screen crawl. They really drive it home and go for gratuitous violence just cause. There is no psychological aspect exactly although being chased by this monster has some fear elements to it.  KANE (the wrestler) also known as Glen Jacobs plays religiously and physically tortured man Jacob Goodnight. He's the ultimate cross between Leatherface, and Jason Voorhees. He's not an original killer and even his kills don't really go for the unique or original with the major exception of choking a girl to death by forcing her to swallower her cell phone...yeeeeah!! He does a good job and the man is legitimately enormous!! He stands at 7 feet tall and without any special effects is monstrous!! Tiffany Lamb, Penny McNamee, Samantha Noble, Michael J. Pagan, Luke Pegler, Christina Vidal, Rachael Taylor all play the typical group of ""think they are invincible"" partying teens who will unwillingly become victim to the serial killer. The story is that in exchange for a month off their detention sentence for petty crimes ranging from theft to drug possession, they are sent to an old hotel to do ""community service "" by fixing it up. Turns out a serial killer lives upstairs and he's removing his victims eyes to cleanse them of their sins. Luke Pegler stands out as a scum bag who in the end becomes a hero of sorts even saving his ex-girlfriend who he used to beat up on. The rest of them all play their perspective roles quite well but it isn't a great stretch of acting ability.  Sadly Porn director...yes PORN...Gregory Dark, does a good job putting together the modern day slasher flick. He even goes into a bit of history with the killer and although his back story is not unique either, in fact it's a little stale it's still interesting enough. And in the few shots where the film goer is actually seeing through the killer's eyes, it's interesting to hear the voices and see things distorted like he does. He throws in the obligatory soft core nude shot, and the grotesque, blood soaked scenes and turns everything up a notch. It fits nicely and for a horror fan like myself it's entertaining. Kane's serial killer is horrifying and he stalks them all down with brutal intelligence and a silent horror. The film is being panned and crapped on and I don't blame anyone because it's pretty crappy but isn't that the point?? It's a horror film and I thought it was exactly what it should be. It made me jump, it made me cringe, it even made ME turn away at several parts...impressive by any standards. It's entertaining, with a decent story, and plenty of set up to serialize See No Evil until the 15th installment if they wanted to and I say bring it on!! It's true the film is full of plot holes, laughable details but the deadly gore and horror over rides it all. It all comes down to do you love horror films?? Really love them?? If yes then you'll think this is a terrific slasher...if not...you'll hate it...plain and simple. 8.5/10",1
"The apolitical musicians Eva (Liv Ullmann) and Jan Rosenberg (Max von Sydow) have been married for seven years and live in a small farm in a remote island to escape from a civil war in the continent. They provide lingenberry to a couple of costumers to raise some money and buy some supplies. They love each other and Eva is twenty years old and wants to have a baby but the reluctant Jan, who is a weak and sensitive man, does not want to have children. When the rebels arrive in the island, their peaceful and calm lives turn to hell, and they get in the middle of accusations from both sides. When Colonel Jacobi (Gunnar Björnstrand) stalks Eva, Jan changes his behavior and becomes a brutal man, and the love and affection they feel for each other change to hatred and indifference.  ""Shame"" is an antiwar movie by the master Ingmar Bergman focused by the eyes of a couple of artists that are apolitical and does not listen to the news, but when the war arrives to their lands, they have their love, friendship and affection destroyed by the senseless soldiers. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow have top-notch performances as usual and I do not recall seeing the breast of Liv Ullmann in any other movie. The process of brutalization of the pacific and sensitive Jan Rosenberg by the war is impressive and the bleak open conclusion is pessimist and adequate to the dramatic story. My vote is nine.  Title (Brazil): ""Vergonha"" (""Shame"")",1
"I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.",0
This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality),0
"Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!  Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.  I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10",0
"I never saw any of The League's work until early last year - although when channel hopping one night I caught the end of one the series three episodes. But last winter I fell in love with the show and its dark, eccentric and sometimes downright sinister characters. So when I learnt they had made a film in which the show's lovable creators met their own characters, I couldn't order the DVD fast enough and near on tore it from my postman's hands when he delivered it. I was so excited to see what the Gents had done and how they'd done it.  And it was excellent! From the beginning where Jeremy (Michael Sheen) is terrorised by Edward, Tubbs and Papa (Dyson, why didn't you play yourself? He's perfectly capable as viewers of the infamous Highgate House of Horrors know!), to Bernice berating yet another one of her flock, to Geoff, Herr Lipp and Hilary discovering that THEY are characters, which is a great scene. The scenes set in 1690 are very enjoyable, with the Gents turning their hands to yet more characters and an all new plot. David Warner's turn as Doctor Pea is fantastic, slightly camp and very funny.  The League have always been brilliant at blending humour with sadness and emotion - and the climax of this film, where Herr Lipp is struggling with the idea that he and the other Vasey residents are just fictional people who will never be able to change who they are or their purpose - and to witness how it's breaking him down, is really sad and beautiful to watch at the same time and that really shows the Gents' talent - something for which they are terribly overlooked for to this day.  And then you have that rather clever ending - where you sit in wonder - with Joby Talbot's beautiful theme music playing. And you know you've enjoyed a very clever and funny film.",1
"While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.  In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.  It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.",0
"Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.",0
"It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say ""Never again!"" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.  Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other ""canonical"" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.",0
"With its ww2 timing, falling in and out of love, and easy on the eye Kira, this is re-Atonement.   This a relationship story with focused main characters working out the the balance between first and fast love in the home front of WW2. Poet Dylan Thomas philanders his way between wife and ex in dark and smoky Blitz London and later in windy wales.   Vera's ex and next spark off each other as the poet and soldier become a sideline while the girls bond and share. An easy watch that works well in the era bouncing along with just a few dips in pace. Would work well with French subtitles but then I may have been to too many art house movies lately.",1
"Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on.",0
"I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.  Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.  The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10",0
"From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it.",0
"'Toy Soldiers' is the story of five misfits boys (most noteably being Sean Astin, Wil Wheaton, and Kieth Coogan) attempt to save their school from a terrorist invasion after the American government imprisons the leader's father. Lou Gosset Jr. plays the headmaster of the school, a headstrong guy who tries to instill in his students a sense of discipline.  'Toy Soldiers' is a funny and pretty cool action, and certainly the better of hostage-crisis-at-school movies. I think most of the appeal comes from the teen cast, but also, the terrorists don't come off as completely useless whereas in some movies, they never seem to be quite the intimidating group that they should. Trapped inside the boarding school, and threatened to be killed if the military or police interferes, this is a very formidable challenge for these group of guys who plan to save the school. They're actually pretty clever about it, too.  I was surprised that it was a pretty good movie. It keeps a steady pace and doesn't get ridiculously sentimental or anything like that. Astin and Gosset Jr. give good performances.   I, too, agree that this is an underrated action movie.",1
"I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.  The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.  The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.  The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the ""humans"" and the ""wolves."" If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.  Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.",0
"I've never seen a movie get a worse release then this. And that's a shame, as this is the funniest film of the year! You would think an ad with the line ""From the director of ""Office Space"""" would be enough to warrant a big release! But there are no ads, no posters, no website , I doubt the stars even knew it came out this weekend. What is 20th Century Fox thinking? Mike Judge's Sci-Fi comedy is set in 2505 but it could come true in about 10 years (if things continue as they are.) Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph get frozen in a top secret army experiment and wake up in a future full of consumer zombie inbred retards. The film reminds me of Woody Allen's ""Sleeper"" ,""RoboCop"", ""Planet of the Apes"", ""Blade Runner"" and ""Network"" and the late great ""Futurama"". Try to see it before Fox burns all the prints!",1
"I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of ""The Fog"", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of ""I Know What You Did Last Summer"", with some elements of ""Scream"", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of ""hide the body"". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 out of 10.",0
"'A New Generation' is the third Amityville entry to base its plot around writer John G. Jones's premise of an item taken from the Long Island house that causes spectral misery and death for its new owners. First a lamp, then a clock, and now a mirror. However, this is also the first Amityville since 'The Possession' to directly tie in to the real- life events that started the whole series. This time around, Keyes Terry (Robert Partridge), an artist, is given a macabre-looking mirror by a homeless man one day. Soon enough, people around him start to die, eventually leading to his discovery that the mirror once hung in the Amityville house - indeed on the very night a man named Franklin Bronner (Sonny Montelli in 'Amityville II') murdered his entire family. Unfortunately for Terry, his discovery of the mirror isn't entirely coincidental, and he soon learns the truth about his past a truth he's kept buried since childhood.  This 7th installment in the often worn-out franchise is something of a disappointment for me. Things were starting to pick up with the silly and uneven, yet entertaining 'It's About Time', and given how much this film tries to draw upon its roots - not the first episode, but the source material itself - it should have been better than it was.   However, three trips to the same well with yet another evil artifact from the Amityville house with yet another explanation for the malign paranormal visitations is wearing on me, to say the least. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Amityville franchise is the steadfast determination by each set of producers to completely ignore every other episode in the series. On the one hand, it's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be tied to someone else's continuity, but at the very least, they could maybe acknowledge story lines that have already been done and just possibly *not repeat them over and over again*.  There's also something rather plodding about the way in which the story unfolds, doubtless due to the inevitability this repetition-fest brings. Since you already know what's going to happen, the carefully-paced build-up is simply slow and tedious. Or maybe it's just tedious anyway. Director John Murlowski probably could have done more to heighten the tense atmosphere associated with the mirror rather than simply having it flash red and emit chattering 'evil' voices, which lacks any kind of subtlety. There were times when characters seemed fairly unfazed by its otherworldly qualities. If they don't take it too seriously, why should we?  Which is a shame, because 'A New Generation' has a more-than-capable cast. I was going to hold off on watching this until I saw the name 'Julia Nickson' in the credits. She captivated my attention just as she always does, and if anything, I was annoyed her part wasn't more extensive. Terry O'Quinn was equally charismatic and again, underused. Partridge himself in the lead role clearly fits the early 90s over-coiffed lumberjack-shirted square-jawed hero type, and while I'm not sure he really gave it the gravitas needed, it's not as if anyone here is performing Ibsen.  The sets are also worthy of note, from the dramatic artwork filling Suki's room, to the claustrophobic corridors featured in flashback/supernatural sequences. Getting the look of these right is especially important given how certain sequences are repeated throughout the film to simulated fragmented memories. Clearly, Murlowski is more of a visual director rather than either an actor's director or one of horror. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a horror film, after all.  'A New Generation' sees the same race being run for the third time in 4 years. Add to this the lack of direction where it was really needed and the whole effort fails to stand as tall as it should. However, it should be acknowledged for its strong ties with the source material and some good actors in not necessarily their finest hours. Honestly, the ideal person for this is someone who hasn't seen any of the sequels past 'The Possession', for whom the story won't be such a massive deja-vu trip.",0
"The first time I've seen this DVD, I was not only happy because of the fact that it was the first time in decades that the band put out anything, but also because the DVD itself is extremely loud. Jimmy Page obviously can't live with quiet music, I guess. I do must say though that during the concert at Royal Albert Hall, they expanded 'How many more times' and 'Moby Dick' too long. Other than that, it was exquisit. My favorite song of all time is now on that DVD. Trampled Underfoot. It's either that one or 'In my time of dying'. In that song, Jimmy really plays that thing good. Ever seen Randy Rhoads play? Well, Jimmy plays just like him, except his guitar is lower.",1
"By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.",0
"This story is an excellent tale of two boys that do whatever they can to get away from there abusive drunkard father. ""Lord of the Rings"" star Elijah Wood is outstanding in this unforgettable role. This movie is one of the main reasons I haven't touched a single beer and never will as long as I live. That might make me sound like a nerd, but that's what I have to say. It is a wonder why this isn't hearld as a classic American tale.",1
"WEEE this is still jolly good fun! As with most of my friends, we had seen this movie on HBO when we were young, and then had been searching ever since for a copy of it. When they finally rereleased it a few years ago, we had a Midnight Madness party... and the movie held up well. Sure, it's pure cheese, but it's still a lot of fun. If you didn't see MM when you were young, you might not appreciate its value today.",1
"The second (not animated) movie about the only people still refusing to surrender to the Roman Empire is even more hilarious than the first film ""Asterix & Obelix contre Ceasar"".  Where the first movie got all the laughs because all cartoon-characters were so perfectly brought to life without losing their cartoonesque identity, this sequel (which is a separate story as are all the comic-books) is even better. Sure, all the ingredients that you find in the first movie and in the comic-books are present again: Obelix is still dying to taste the ""magic potion"" that gives his other tribe members such enormous powers, Caesar and the rest of the Roman Empire are still enemy number 1, but some new, refreshing elements have been brought to the stage as well.  Not only is setting very idyllic (biggest part plays of course in Egypt) but rather than repeating movie number one, some extras have been added by making all kinds of references to other movies (Bruce Lee etc.). This is all not very new, but the unexpected combination of the known story from the comic-book (with almost the same title as the movie) and references to stuff that has got absolutely nothing to do with Asterix & Obelix really works.  In that way the movie builds further on a tradition by comic-writers Goscinny and Uderzo who didn't hesitate to bring Laurel and Hardy on the stage and even dedicate an entire story to Kirk Douglas.  If all of this doesn't convince you to watch this movie, I'm sure Monica Bellucci playing Cleopatra will....",1
"This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a ""sexual social worker"" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!  The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.",0
"this really is an ""okay"" series.. everyone in it is pretty good. but i just can't take Reba. she's trying to be funny but she just isn't and then she got a stupid accent!! if they took her out of the show i would love to see it every day..  i have been watching the show in 10 min now and as i said before, Reba IS destroying the show. however the 20 year old guy (dont know his name) but he's soooo funny, and he's really saving it all..  so here's the recipe to get a great show. kick Reba of it and then put the 20 year old guy into the lead role.  i really hope someone out there agrees with me and thinks (like me) that they should kick Reba of the show and put someone else in the lead role",0
"This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than ""Wooden Camera"". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.  Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.",0
"Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican.   There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states ""Don't Drink Poison"". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.  In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.",0
"National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *",0
I don't believe it... Luc Besson is not only a genius now...he has always been one... this film is for everyone who likes real good deep films...just perfect!,1
"I haven't seen so many people packed outside a theater since Star Wars Episode III. Both shows sold out, and for good reason. The Man With the Screaming Brain was the best movie to see with a crowd full of geeks. (Hey, I'm a dork too.)   Bruce Campbell was present and had the whole crowd in stitches! The movie was cheesy in the best possible way. It may be the funniest movie that Bruce has done. Ted Raimi steals the show with his Bulgarian hip hop-itude and zany facial expressions, he is a laugh riot! Who knew that Ted could rap?   I changed my mind, the person who stole the show was actually a robot. There is nothing funnier than a robot...doing the robot.  As for Bruce's performance: ""I take the 5th."" Thanks Bruce. Thanks for being cool, thanks for taking the time, thanks for all of the fun.",1
"I enjoy gay-themed movies where the characters aren't stereotypically gay and that's what attracted me to this movie, that and the principal actor, which is the only reason I'm giving this movie one more star than it deserves (although not because of his acting in the film, let me tell you). A lot of people complain about the cinematography, but the camcorder feel of the movie added a certain ""underground"" quality to it for me and there are a couple of scenes, usually around sunset or sunrise and among trains that would make any movie screen blush.  But the acting is cardboard, the music is repetitive (I got through the latter half of the movie listening to a soundtrack from another film), you have to wait almost twenty minutes for any dialog and then it is awkward and amateur. The subject of graffiti could have made this movie great had it been gracefully exploited and had the art itself been more intriguing, but it isn't.  Worst of all, there is no climax; there wasn't really a plot to begin with. The movie just crawls back into its shell of silence and dies. A forgettable movie.",0
"Seriously, all these Satan comes to Earth movies always involve the Catholics. Why doesn't Lucifer ever mess with the other denominations.  The plot is that Asmodeus (Played by former Jason Vorhees Kane Hodder) has a plot to become human (but wasn't he always a demon) by getting this young girl who is his sister pregnant with his child. Except maybe she isn't his sister. The plot isn't clear on this, and they inter-splice these scenes where he is seeing a shrink about his problem.  The lead girl gets pregnant while still a virgin, with an incredibly creepy scene of her father giving her a gynecological exam to prove her hymen is still intact.... Eeeewwwwww. Her sister (played by a washed up and looking much worse for wear Denise Crosby) concludes that this is a sign from heaven. Praise be!   Well, the demon baby takes mom's body for a joy ride and picks off, in order, a truck driver, her friend's boyfriend and her friend, all being watched by an ex-military priest whose mission is to kill the baby when it is born. We discover that Asmodeus is actually a Catholic Cardinal who is running the whole thing.  The ending is pretty much incomprehensible, and if you could make it that far straight through, you have a stronger stomach than I did. (I paused the film a couple of times, it was so awful.)",0
"I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.  As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly ""Christian.""  **Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**  First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts.   Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical ""unbeliever""-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: ""Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!"" ""Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!"" ""The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!"" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a ""clear message for Christ,"" you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a ""witnessing tool"" for your ""unsaved"" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.  Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: ""UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens,"" which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.  Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it.",0
"""Tourist Trap"" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including ""Crawlspace"",""Puppet Master"" and ""Netherworld"".Still ""Tourist Trap"" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.9 out of 10.",1
"I didn't know what to expect when I started watching this movie, by the end of it I was pulling my hairs out. This was one of the most pathetic movies of this year...in fact, in the last ten years. David Dhawan should just give up his career as a director. I am yet to come across one original script that David Dhawan has worked on. This one was a complete bit y bit rip off Hitch. I have nothing against remakes as such, but this one is just so lousy that it makes you even hate the original one (which was pretty decent). I fail to understand what actors like Salman and Govinda saw in this script. I read somewhere, that this was supposed to be Govinda's comeback vehicle. If thats true, then only God can save his career. Salman just overacted to the hilt. Govinda who I think is an actor of very high caliber was completely wasted. Katrina Kaif and LAra Dutta had nothing to do apart form wearing designer clothes and smiling for no rhyme or reason. Please stay away form this one!",0
"I was surprised and touched by this emotional movie which moved me very strange. I was confused, sad and happy in the same moment. I guess that too less people will pay attention to this movie. But I hope that at least a few will see it and get something out of it. The story of two friends, linked by their suffers of bodily disability, whom (as a team) beat the medical well-fare system and fight for their rights. This movie shows a side which some of us would never understand, not too exaggerated but emotional presented. Hopefully this movie will help us to understand some of their desires better and realize how important it is to have a friend in the world, especially when you almost unable to express that fact.",1
"I am a big fan of sci-fi movies. So, when I saw this movie in the EPG, I thought I was in for a pleasant evening. What a disappointment ! Such a poor display of ""special"" effects I could not imagine in 1980, but in 2005 ? Come on, why would you do special effects of an helicopter flying in the desert when you can film a real one for a much lower price (I guess) ? And those killer ""muppets""... well, I could do better than that in a couple of hours in the garage. You can expect to have a low budget on a movie, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a low movie for any budget. As for the ""star"" of the movie (I use a lot of quotes tonight...), Lou Diamond Philips, the guy is not even remotely an actor. Maybe he should have stayed to the martial arts movies. All in all, an awful movie. Maybe I am in a bad mood tonight. Then again, maybe not. A sincere 1 out of 10.",0
"This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.  It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.  The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.  Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.  It just isn't very good most of the time.",0
"Thats what this movie really takes. A big piece of cheeze. This movie is about a sister and brother Bonnie and Clyde type of duo that creates their own party line in order to lure their victims in and trap them and kill them. But for what reason? Just for the fun of getting away with it? In comes Richard Hatch who comes across as a wishy washy ladies man. A real BAD version of a ladies man. And he gets involved with finding who's behind all the killings across LA. He finally meets a teenager who helps him find the killer and rest is for your fun and amusement. But there are parts in this film that really get me going like the scene with Lief Garret dressed in his mothers wedding gown acting like a sissy in front of his sister telling her that he needs her and can't live without her and watching as she slaps him across the face dominateing him. I can't believe that was Lief!!! Well, I guess I could. But it's worth watching but only to see one of Garrets worst films that he ever did.",0
"Just to correct something in a previous review here, I don't believe this film is only for people who know London, it's a case of a very specific situation being used to make universal comments. Jack Rosenthal says in an introduction to the published script that it was meant to be about characters who, by going though this gruelling Knowledge test, gain some measure of self-knowledge.  I think it's one of the most perfectly-written dramas I've seen: technically it's supremely adept at conveying quite complex details but it's also joyous in how it involves you. At the start you know no more about this London Knowledge test than the main characters but you get scooped up right along with them until it's vitally important to you. You become tremendously proud of those characters who succeed, and you are crushed for those who don't. Especially one whose downfall, without giving anything anyway, will make your hands fly to your face.  Also just as a point of fact, Nigel Hawthorne's character, Mr Burgess, is called the Vampire, not Dracula. You don't need to know this, I'm not saying it's crucial, but it's a measure of the drama: once you've seen this, you will want everyone to and you will evangelise about its every detail.  I hope you get to see it.  William",1
"This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.  People who should be shot for this film▼  The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer  People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼  Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.",0
"I'm just starting to explore the so far wonderful world of monsieur Ozon. I've seen only 4 films so far, and with the last one in the row it hit me that all of them were in fact about lonely women and their actions. Not a single non-lonely female character out of 12, and all of them bring heavy impact of surroundings.  This film is probably the only one (out of four) where this impact is for good.  The gay theme is an almost standard part of background for Ozon's films, so it doesn't grab the accent (although the looks of the characters might). Watch for the feelings, not for their objects.  Very nice and fleeting, truly like a summer romance, and while being a relaxation to thought and mind, it gives some food for the soul.",1
"This film does not have the outstanding visuals that American Beauty or The Ice Storm offered and because it was made after those films, it cannot be marked as very original either: the music, though subtly brilliant, sounds very much like that of American Beauty.   The story has some similarities with The Ice Storm in particular (as well as Sigourney Weaver). Without intent perhaps, the film seems to try to recreate the success of the two aforementioned movies too much. At times, the story tends to stay a bit more shallow than it's bigger, more successful ""brothers"" by having too much going on, or by not delivering the most effective dialogs. Here, the writing cannot measure with that of American Beauty. But that can be said about most movies ever made, even the best and there is still a lot to like: said music score and (expectable, given the cast) effective performances. Of note is Emile Hirsch who would shine a couple of years later in the outstanding ""Into The Wild"".  Overall I can recommend this film if you like suburban dramas though it's not the first one on a list of must-sees, which would be topped by: 1 American beauty 2 The Ice Storm 3 Little Children.  After you've seen and liked those, check out this one.",1
"I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in ""robot"" costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole ""plot"" isn't a robot either.  The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...  This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of ""Star Crystal"". In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say ""of all time"".",0
"I just checked out Northanger Abbey from the local library, and wasn't expecting much. Imagine my suprise at this gothic treat! Northanger Abbey is one of the most eerie places that you have ever seen, with empty passageways and ornate rooms full of hidden secrets. The glory of the movie is that it never reveals all: your imagination runs free, running with the imagination of the main character, one Kathrine M. She is a girl of wild imaginations, a reader of gothic fantasy that she brings into her (and our) real world.  If I were to use one word to describe this excellent movie, it would be surrealistic. Dreams are woven throughout the movie, enhancing the mood. Sometimes, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not; this is intentional, I believe.  Atmosphere reigns supreme. The music is not what you'd expect of a movie by Jane Austen: it is eerie, flute and drum based, high and haunting with an undercurrent of fear. If a soft, pleasant tune were playing in Northanger Abbey, it would be positively inviting. Now, it is foreboding, a grim and stark-walled palace of madmen. (But! The characters! You shall have to see them for yourself!)  If you are looking for a most enjoyable evening, look no further than Northanger Abbey.",1
"I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.  (Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the ""Demon Cop"", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.  Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, ""I didn't get a good look at him."" My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.  Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.  Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.  All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.",0
"This is a poor caricature of ""Lonesome Dove"" - and Larry McMurtry.  I love your books, with ""Lonesome Dove"" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.  Why have you come to this?  ""Comanche Moon"" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.  The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.  Well, I miss Call, too.  The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.  Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.  While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...  How can it be so different from ""Lonesome Dove""? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.",0
"I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!",0
"I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one.",0
"Thirst  I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.  Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.  The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.  For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.  But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9/10",1
"Certain aspects of Punishment Park are less than perfect, specifically some of the acting. However I feel that this is probably the most important movie of the ""war on terror"" era. I grew up hating hippies and in some respects I still do. It wasn't until the United States was started down the path of an unnecessary and deceitful war in Iraq that I began to see the world through their eyes. I can feel what they must have felt. Although the film is somewhat dated, watching it brings those uncomfortable emotions about our present situation right to the surface. It's clear enough early in the film that Punishment Park is designed to be a concentration and death camp for all the ""unpatriotic"" elements of American society. This is certainly an exaggerated and extreme view of our polarized society, but it is CREDIBLE. At times I find myself believing that the USA could easily slip into fascism. As I watched this film I could only think about how I hear similar sentiments from people on both sides of the political spectrum almost daily. This movie is a raw, concentrated distillation of America's PRESENT political scene. I am both impressed and saddened that something this relevant (and yes, accurate) was filmed more than 30 years ago. If you take a more moderate view of the movie and choose to believe that this couldn't happen here, look more closely at Guantanamo Bay, some of our ""enemy combatants,"" the rumored CIA secret prisons and the many incidents similar to the one in Greensboro, NC in 1979 (8 full years AFTER the making of this movie).",1
"this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two ""cute french boys"" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10",0
"The film begins with a dowdy housewife (Norma Shearer) finding out that her husband (Rod La Rocque) had been cheating on her. Three years pass and apparently they'd been divorced during these years due to the infidelity. Oddly, during this time, La Rocque did not see Shearer or his two kids as Shearer took them to Paris.  Marie Dressler is a rich society lady and she has invited a new and improved Norma to come to her house for the weekend--ostensibly to help Marie break up a budding romance between her daughter and La Rocque! Apparently, Norma is now a super-vamp and with her magical sex appeal, she can break up the romance--and no one seems to realize that she and La Rocque were married. Several others are there for the weekend and immediately Norma is a hit with her gay, carefree sexy ways--and almost all the men (including La Rocque) are captivated by her. Neither tells anyone that they were married but it's obvious that her ex- wants the new and improved Norma back! This film is a sophisticated comedy of manners among the upper-crust--similar in some ways to Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME. Oddly, despite the severity of the Depression, such films about pretty rich folks were pretty popular though many today will doubtless find them a bit too droll in spots. However, fortunately, in LET US BE GAY, there are plenty of cute and funny moments (particularly towards the end when Marie Dressler shows her true colors). While not a great film, it certainly is a good one and more than just another time-passer. My only real regret is that I didn't love the very end. You'll just have to see it for yourself--perhaps you'll agree about the ending, perhaps you won't, but I'm pretty sure you will enjoy this clever film.",1
"I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?  I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what/who I want to see despite any reviews.  I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.  I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.  It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the ""love"", and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.  It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.  I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): ""Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us"".. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.  Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie.",1
"Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off ""real cute"" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.  That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....  The kid ""Rusty"" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as ""Russell"" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.  Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including ""The Cat In The Hat"" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning.   Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.",0
"I enjoyed, appreciated, will view this movie again because I am sure There are subtleties that I missed. Wonderfully cast, no over acting or Cliché performance or plot. Uses a tragic event to reflect multiple Relationships, how those involved in each relationship are connected (Or disconnected) and perceptions of life, what position each one Occupies in the relationship, in life and how they cope with the Confusion, joy, hurt and disappointment of discovering that things are not what they perceived them to be. At first I thought there were ""Observers"" and ""the observed"", but that is not the case, we are all connected somehow and our perceived separation is only in small degrees. I recommend the movie to everyone especially those in teaching, social work, religious counseling and every other person that breaths.",1
"this film explores if not creates a whole new genre with perfect imperfection --- hilarity, truth, fun, talent and circumstance that make for MAGIC.   from creative musical numbers to off the cuff comedy that incorporates actors at their very best, if i hadn't have known better, i would have thought there was an elaborate script here.  what you get: a mighty wind meets conversations with god meets something so fresh and new and delightful that it becomes it's own entity.  peters and fell both give stellar performances and reel you in immediately. the rest of the cast is also phenomenal. there are no small parts....... only small actors, and everyone involved here should be patted on the back, taken out to dinner and be considered for an Oscar.  well done!",1
"I was just looking up "" who will love my children"" to buy, when I came across this web site and an entry made by a fellow Briton!! I am a great fan of this movie and would, and have, recommended it to all. What I found comforting is to find someone else who also finds comfort in the good will of others. I also have a son with Aspergers (amongst other things) and it is also a fear of mine to think if anything ever happened to me and my husband, that someone would not only want to take on just my beautiful 'normal' daughter, but my special and gifted son also. Missing home and being able to relate to people raised with the same values as myself has more meaning than you know. Living here in the US I have yet to meet anyone who has seen this movie. So to all of you reading this, if you have not seen it, make an effort to do so. It is a very moving experience, especially for anyone who is a parent, or even if you just have a sympathetic bone in your body, you will cry, and beg. After that you will count your blessings, And to anyone who has ever been through an experience like , or close to this one, my heart goes out to you. It makes me realize no matter how hard or stressful thing get, just remind yourself that there is always someone worse off than you. An amazing movie and what makes it more powerful is the fact that it is based on a true story. Do not be put off by how sad it is, at the same time this movie is heart warming, and makes you feel encouraged about the strength and goodness of mankind.",1
"real love. true love. mad love. beautiful love. ugly love. dirty love. sad love. happy love. silly love. smart love. gorgeous love. dumb love. love love love. minnie moore understands that what she really needs is a man who trust her, trust her and love her madly. of course when this man comes along... she tries to run away but seymour, wonderful seymour, he trusts her, he believes in her so he is going to fight for her against her. i want to be like seymour moskowitz. i want to be that kind of man. a man willing to love without been afraid to fail but willing to fail. that's a kind of hero. that's my kind of hero... and minnie moore is my kind of woman. long live cassavetes and all his lovely bunch!",1
"Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration.   The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, ""quick - we must try to save him,"" but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two ""rescuers"" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!  I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?",0
"What I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film.",0
"After stabbing a retarded boy, the fifteen years old troubled and pessimist Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to a juvenile detention. His teacher and aspirant writer Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle) gets close and tries to understand him, first with intention of writing a book, and later becoming his friend. Leland slowly discloses his sad vision of world, showing that he is a sociopath.  ""The United States of Leland"" is a depressive and interesting study of a character. The low paced riveting screenplay discloses pieces of the story like a puzzle; there are excellent lines and dialogs; the performances are great, although the twenty-three years old Ryan Gosling does not convince as a fifteen years old teenager; but it seems that a part is missing to complete the puzzle and make ""The United States of Leland"" an unforgettable movie. The disappointing clarification of the ""why"" for the violent action of Leland against Ryan Pollard is not convincing or touching, indeed shows that this character is a totally deranged sociopath with a weird and sick sight of world. Further, the way Allen Harris gets Pearl's knife is ridiculous. My vote is seven.  Title (Brazil): ""O Mundo de Leland"" (""The World of Leland"")",1
"Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. ""Tommy Boy"" is a character right from ""SNL"" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.  David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.  The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be ""funny"" together.  The movie's biggest ""influence"" is the 1987 comedy classic ""Planes, Trains & Automobiles."" That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. ""Tommy Boy"" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. ""PTA"" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - ""Tommy Boy"" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.  The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from ""PTA"" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.  Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.  Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a ""har-har funny"" way. More like a ""oh god are they serious?!"" way.  Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it ""borrows"" from - not just counting ""PT&A"" - without any credit whatsoever.",0
"After his earlier movie ""Videodrome"", which definitely shows similarities to this movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole other level.  ""eXistenZ"" is an highly original movie that is well directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director David Cronenberg.  ""eXistenZ"" is a movie that knows to constantly fool you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending that will leave you thinking even more.  The movie has a perfect kind of game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is.  The movie knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of its events, dialogs and unusual environments.  The movie is not only just weird though. I was actually surprised to see that ""Videodrome"" has an higher rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort of movies.  The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required 'gaming' feeling.  The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star. The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe.  An highly original movie that is well worth watching, especially if you have seen ""Videodrome"" previously.  8/10",1
"*Flat SPOILERS*   Five med students, Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland), David Labraccio (Kevin Bacon), Rachel Mannus (Julia Roberts), Joe Hurley (William Baldwin) & Randy Steckle (Oliver Platt) decide to attempt an experiment; dying for exactly 5 minutes (it is the maximum amount of time somebody can do this before being risk of brain damage).  Almost everyone does this experiment, Randy being the lone exception, but they begin to have unwelcome visitors; David sees a little black girl shouting crude insults to him, Joe sees all the women he has had sex with (and which he videotaped) asking him why from the TV Screen, Rachel relives her father's suicide and Nelson faces a little boy with murderous intentions.  Why are they here? And how will they get rid of them? This tense and interesting movie, set in an hallucinated city and into a Gothic Med School, is quite the experience, both for the story and the characters, played by then-budding stars such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon and William Baldwin.  The director is Joel Schumacher, who had already worked with Sutherland in 'Lost Boys', and this second cooperation is even better than the first.  A must for psychological-thriller-horror buds and metaphor lovers (this story is about forgiveness and righting of past wrongs), this is one of the minor classics from the '80s that get respect even today, like the mention by Rebecca Gayheart in 'Scream 2' or the Tru Calling episode which used the movie's premise.  Flatliners: 9/10.",1
"This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result!   And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever made!   It has everything:   Cast: first steps of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie!  Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious with long close-up ""à la David Lynch"".  Cinematography: the light is beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love!  A never-seen before Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same time!   Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames. And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer!   Ah, … the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which is derivative from the Latin ""pain"". You can suffer a lot when you are in love! Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the indecision.   And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?), devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late, and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love?   Personally, I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and you know it's her ""special friend"" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just started!   I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no one else!",1
This short film doesn't get there. Cliche' and not very funny attempt at dark humor. Humor isn't funny enough to get you interested and the protagonist isn't likeable so you really don't care about what happens anyway. Producer spent some money on this flop and it shows in the production value which is the only saving grace.,0
"The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.  Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.  This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.",0
"Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.  It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.  It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.  Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.  In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.",1
"I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.",0
"I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.  The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.",0
"This week's surprise screening at GV turned out to be the horror movie The Nun (La Monja). Seriously, I think that horror movies should try and come up with more imaginative titles, even though the story's about the character as described in the title. Who knows, soon we'll have spinoffs like The Monk, The Priest, and others belonging to various religious sects.  The basic premise goes very simply, that a ghoul dressed up in a Nun garb (so that it can lay claim to the title) goes around killing ex-convent girls. There seemed to be some sort of conspiracy involved, as the daughter of one of the victims, Eva (played by an eye candy Icelandic Anita Briem), goes on to discover, with the help of a few good friends, like a rip off of I Know What You Did Last Summer (mentioned also, by the way).  So as the body count increases, it's a race against time for our emotionally scarred (aren't they always?) heroine to uncover the truth and save the day. Delving into the sins of the mothers, the movie did the unthinkable, that with a dream sequence as the introduction. I hate dream sequences as it's a pretty cheap technique if not done correctly, and there are a couple of them in the movie.  In part, the movie played at times like Ju-On gone wrong with the plenty of Dark Water references, and they could have retitled this Unholy Water, for the circumstances and plot points in the movie. However, there are plot holes abound, so don't be looking into the storyline too deeply. You'd come to expect the standard textbook twists towards the end about the sadistic nun, and sets which look like they can rival recent Thai horror movie Dorm.  The acting's pretty forgettable, with the cast speaking in perfect heavily accented English. And since most of them are pleasing to the eye, the story must weave in a love scene in the middle of a witch-hunt. What gives? Hello, got hantu, still got mood ah? Then again, the ghoul is a pretty cheap animated/SFX which has a built in AI of popping up every now and then, in various fashion, just to elicit screams from timid audiences. The characters also break every unwritten rule in the Do-Nots in horror lore, so you know and expect their just desserts.  Can you possibly enjoy this movie? Sure you can. Just ensure that you're watching it in a full house (should be easy, since local folks are suckers for anything remotely horrific), and laugh at those who are so jumpy they scream at every ""frightening"" scene. It's pretty fun, and adds to the atmosphere, besides what's going on the screen. Surround sound doesn't even come close.  Think of it as watching an episode of Scooby Doo without the wisecracks, and it's a pity that the gory moments in the movie had to be censored for a PG rating. Those could possibly have been the best bits, now left rotting on the censor's floor board.",0
"""Haaaarrrryyy!""   The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.  Jaw-droppingly tacky, ""Aot50FW"" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.  Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.  The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed ""The Deadly Mantis,"" ""The 7th Voyage of Sinbad,"" ""Jack, the Giant Killer"" plus several episodes of TV's ""World of Giants"" and ""Land of the Giants.""   A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.",0
"Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals. Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish. Don't miss the genius contained in this one.",1
"Who is minding the store here? How could any producer/network executive/director let a crew stick the skeeziest fakest plastic palm trees in film history in the sands of a wintry Canadian beach and try to fob it off on us as the tropics? Those trees were to real palm trees what a pink tinsel K-Mart Christmas tree is to real fir. And who let Dermot Mulroney go in front of the camera with painted-on grey hair that wouldn't have passed muster in a high school play? And didn't any of the geniuses doing quality control on this thing think to correct the (excellent) Canadian actor when he said gaz instead of gas? Everybody involved with this plodding slug of a ""movie""--writer, director, actors--has done not just good but brilliant work elsewhere. Paced way too fast between events and deadly slow within them, devoid of any emotion except the obvious, expository and contrived--maybe this only seems like one of Lifetime's worst movie because of all the Red Carpet hype with which it was presented. And I'm saying this as somebody who love Lifetime. What gives, folks?  All of that said, a certain actress's work at a certain critical turn in the movie (and if you've seen it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about) was so brilliant that the movie would have gotten a 10 from me if that was the whole movie. Unfortunately it was only about five seconds of it.",0
his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.  After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.  Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.  And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.,0
"The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!",1
"I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors ""in the mood"". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their ""sincere moments."" This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!",0
"You cannot be seeing the same movie if you didn't grow up in France (or spent at least 10 years there, like me). I don't know if it will ever make it outside French cultural borders (I include Belgium and Luxembourg here). You cannot translate its kind of fun - every name is joke (how many people outside Paris would understand the pun in ""Couloirdebus"", the name of one of the Roman legionnaires ?). However Monica Bel(l?)ucci is so beautiful, I almost forgot to breathe when I saw her.",1
"The Falcon and the Snowman is based on a true story. Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee, (the titular traitors,) played by Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn, received their code- names from the KGB. Why? Boyce was an avid falconer and Lee was a coke head. The movie is based on a true story. It's based on the book of the same name. Another reviewer asked what was their motivation? Disillusionment it ain't. Ideology it ain't. (Pardon my bad grammar,) but I'm making a point here. What was it if it wasn't disillusionment or ideology? In a word, greed. By the time of the Boyce-Lee case, money became the great motivator and not ideology. Don't believe me? Then look at the Walker Family Spy Ring which was broken in the late '80s. Three spies did the worst damage to our national security in the '70s and '80s. John Walker, who began his career as a spy in the '60s, Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee. All three sold out this country for thirty pieces of silver. If you aren't familiar with that phrase, I suggest you read the Bible.",1
"Though often considered Peter Sellers' worst film, it is in fact an excellent send-up of medical corporate corruption and abuses of power. Often misunderstood, the film is actually a departure from the type of film Sellers was best known for; satirical farce. This film had excellent performances by Jo Ann Pflug and Pat Morita (of Happy Days and the Karate Kid movies), but was marked by its ribaldary, irreverence, and total madcap demolition of the medical industry of the day. It was ahead of its time (1972) in taking the outrageous path that the Monty Python crew would take into the cinema some time later. As such, it was unacceptable to the traditional Peter Sellers fan, who found the more pointed barbs in this humor to be something to which they were unaccustomed. Presently, Peter Sellers movies are in demand by fans, but this effort, Where Does It Hurt?, has by its nature become almost impossible to find.",1
"A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting.   It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.  In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.",0
"Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals… They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)… and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.  Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.  The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.  The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)  Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.",0
"This might very well be the worst movie I've seen in my life. Normally I don't watch movies like this, however I was forced to watch this at school. What a torment!  The story is as average and boring as it can be: Boy meets girl at the Spanish coast, boy and girl fall in love, but the love between the two seems impossible and everyone and everything is against their love. At the end of the movie the film becomes some kind of weird kung-fu movie were the guys in white fight the guys in black. Awful!  The action is so bad that it makes you laugh. The dances in the film that I think are supposed to be cool are so simple and laughable that even I can do them! And Georgina Verbaan is possibly the most irritating person i've ever seen on screen.  Johan Nijenhuis is on his way of becoming the Dutch Ed Wood. His movies are so bad that they make you laugh.  Victor Löw however gives a surprising good performance and Daan Schuurmans also acts OK.  So please for your own sake don't watch this movie. However if you like watching soaps this might be very well worth your time.  Yuk!  2/10",0
"Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell, meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm, cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?), and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his panic and screams at a statue, ""What are you looking at?!"" The movie looks like a Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning, yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard ""bumbling assistant"" role admirably enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk. (Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre, nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a cinematic experience too seriously.",1
"As I type these comments I'm watching a DVD of this movie that I just got from a mail-order dealer, and I'm finding that it holds up extremely well, with strong characterizations, believable situations, and well-staged action scenes.  It's been a good 45 years, maybe 50, since I saw HELL BELOW, but the one scene that made an extremely deep impression on me was Sterling Holloway's death scene, which several other commenters have mentioned here. I haven't gotten to that scene yet on this viewing, but I can vouch for what other comments have said: once you see Sterling Holloway's death scene in this movie, you will absolutely never, ever forget it. Judging from how strong the film so far is holding up, I fully expect that scene to live up to the memory of it -- as unquestionably one of the greatest death scenes in movie history. The movie's worth seeing for that moment alone, but even without it, it would be a first-rate early submarine drama.",1
"Michael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do?   This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.  There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest.",0
"The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.",0
"You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He (""Rusty,"" our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.  By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the ""pet"" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar?   I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting.   Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean ""lovers"" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age.",0
"A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.  All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.  FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle.",1
"This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?",1
"Everyone's favorite trio of bumbling imbeciles run amok in a hospital in this incredibly raucous and often hysterically funny romp. These guys are without a doubt the single most incompetent bunch of doctors to ever fumble their way across the screen. Comic highlights include the Stooges constantly breaking a glass pane in a door, their encounter with a deranged patient who claims that rats used to come out of the buttonhole of his shirt, the Stooges riding through the hallways on a giant bicycle, a huge horse, and miniature race cars, and our sublimely stupid threesome accidentally leaving instruments inside a hapless patient's abdomen after they finish operating on the poor fellow. Director Ray McCarey relates the frantic comic shenanigans at an appropriately nonstop hectic pace and stages the broad slapstick gags with considerable gusto. Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard are all in peak loopy form, with sterling support from Dell Henderson as long-suffering hospital supervisor Dr. Graves, squeaky-voiced Jeanie Roberts as a hiccuping nurse (the scene where the Stooges do an absurd impromptu group singalong with this gal is absolutely sidesplitting!), Ruth Hiatt as a whispering nurse, Billy Gilbert as the ranting crazy patient, and ""Little Billy"" Rhodes as a feisty tiny patient. The spirited lunacy never lets up for a minute, thereby making this beautifully berserk baby one of the Stooges' best-ever outings.",1
"What a sad surprise.  Being a die-hard fan of the original series (starring Don Adams) I was really looking forward to this. Poor fool me. This is sillier and more brain dead than a monkey's bottom.  To say it was bad would be a severe understatement. It is/was the worst movie (well first 30 minutes of one) I have seen for a long time. I couldn't stand more than the first half hour, preferring to watch my hard drive de-fragment.  I can tolerate bad... bad is O.K., sometimes even cute. BUT up with contrived Hollywood crap (and this has to be the worst in many years) I will not put. This movie is a gross insult to the collective intelligence of humanity! My five year-old daughter could have written better - and she is not even dislexic!!! I'm really tempted to try watching the rest of it, but I'm afraid I have better things to do... like making pizza dough and watching it rise.  What a sad disappointment. No... I'm buggered off! What a swindle! As Mel Brookes once said; ""Piece of shirt!""",0
"It's wartime drama - WWII, with French and Jews and Germans, but this one is somehow fun, earnestly so. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau co-wrote the script to his well-received film ""Bon Voyage"" (2003). Unlike director Bertrand Tavernier's ""Safe Conduct"" aka ""Laissez-passer"" (2002), w-d Rolf Schubel's ""Gloomy Sunday"" (1999), or w-d Claude Berri's ""Lucie Aubrac"" (1997), ""Bon Voyage"" is as chipper as its title sounds - c'est la vie (whatever) - and we have the beautiful talented Isabelle Adjani to thank for. It is her delightful performance throughout as the center of attraction (and attention), the cause and effect of it all, that made the film so enjoyable as it is. Hell, what's another derailment of her plan and expectations - will worry about that another time. The backbone of the story does revolve around a pair of young enthusiasts: Grégori Derangère as Frédéric and Virginie Ledoyen (from Francois Ozon's ""8 Women"") as Camille. The incomparable Gérard Depardieu, the witty Yvan Attal (of ""My Wife is An Actress"") and versatile Peter Coyote (juggling French, English and German here) are some of the stellar cast involved.   There are many characters coming and going in this plot of a movie, and how it's all juggled is a skilful knack that requires no analysis - Rappeneau is simply a genius. The story just builds upon itself, one episode after another, or even with overlapping events, but never confusing - that's the delight of it all, somehow every detail turns out right on the screen and we just lap it all up like a tastily presented French dessert, literally so. There's thrills, trills, tender hesitant moments and taut ominous escapes, all playing out in front of our eyes.    From reading the Director's Note on the Sony Pictures Classics' Bon Voyage official site, Rappeneau indicated this is his most personal and successful work ever. Depicting Bordeaux 1940 from memories of his childhood years is very much close to his heart and he ""had worked and reworked the script for almost 3 years."" This film is a labor of love all round, the cast and crew complementing the director's passion and a formidable script by collaborative writers along with the director and his son Julien - adaptation efforts by Gilles Marchand, Patrick Modiano, and Jérôme Tonnerre.  Music by Gabriel Yared (varied in tone from his previous film scores like ""The English Patient"" or ""Talented Mr. Ripley""), who provided a befitting theme that kept the pace and rhythm of the plot going - almost like a train going non-stop, reflecting Adjani's Viviane's vivacious energy (even when she's tired), keeping her going as she meets whatever comes, walking on with head held high and stylish attire always, no looking back, let alone time for regrets.   Ah, mustn't forget the wonderfully translated, skilful subtitles by Ian Burley, who also did subtitles for films in Italian: ""Bread and Tulips"" (2000) aka Pane e tulipani, ""The Last Kiss"" (2001) aka L'ultimo bacio, and Tom Tykwer's ""Heaven"" (2002).  If you find this much too light a wartime relationship drama, try w-d Mäx Fäberböck's ""Aimée and Jaguar"" (1999, in German, based on a true story) with brilliant performances from Juliane Köhler as Aimée and Maria Schrader as Jaguar.",1
"In this early Fulci work the director shows his most mainstream side as well as a talent for compelling storytelling and more than reasonable elucidation for the genre. Personally I think he has been unfairly maligned throughout his career as an aesthete of gore. It's a pretty capable procedural and surprised me with its subtextually rich narrative that shows his distrust for small minded small-town mentality and the inefficiency of the police, as well as the twisted ideals of the Catholic church, the last of which seemed to have cut this film at its knees when it was first released and could have possibly given the director another direction so early on. The comparative lack of gore in the film shows a more urgent and psychological imperative to this film in its prevailing ""mystery"" but the gore and puppetry he does utilise is put to good use here most notably in the scene where a falsely accused murderer is senselessly lynched by a mob of men in a graveyard and left for dead in a show of vile and antiquated vigilantism, expertly choreographed to the modern tunes off a diegetic radio.  Another example was the final scene (which was indeed awesome) in which a strikingly handsome priest falls from a cliff and the puppet used is markedly showed in a medium closeup which accentuated its demonic appearance and evident ugliness. Curiously, considering his later works, Fulci also invokes the idea of modernity seized upon the hamlet holding on to its anachronistic superstitions and ignorance when the idea of black magic is just that, a quaint idea of supernatural evil that never really ends up manifesting from the voodoo dolls while making its witch nothing more than a disturbed woman. Another thing I liked was that he adds to these character layers by making a bourgeois city girl into an ambiguous figure - is she the corrupter the priest fears for his wards and perhaps more tellingly, for himself? This giallo does lend itself to becoming one of Fulci's more personal and substantive films, in that we actually get a fair influx of ideas from him.",1
"Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.  In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.  It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.",0
"'Night Crossing' is about an enormous barrier designed not to keep enemies out but to keep its own people in…  'Night Crossing' is about a very long border fencer equipped with silent alarms and automatic firing systems…  'Night Crossing' is about the denial of the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…  'Night Crossing' is about the fear and pain that afflict so many families…  'Night Crossing' is about one attempt to risk a crossing through the border zone…  'Night Crossing' is about a loving father whose only desire is to give his boys what should never have been taken away from them…  'Night Crossing' is about a disturbed mother who wants her babies and her husband alive…  'Night Crossing' is about a caring husband who wants his family to be together but in a better place…  'Night Crossing' is about children who want to be free to reach at anytime the sky…  'Night Crossing' is about a hot-air balloon handcrafted and built by two families…   'Night Crossing' is about a balloon which could go just high enough to crash or catch fire and explode…  'Night Crossing' is about two determined men who want their family to climb into a hot air balloon and float away to 'liberty'…  'Night Crossing' is about the fear of getting caught by an evil regime…  'Night Crossing' is about a sensible man who can't let bad dreams stop him…  'Night Crossing' is about an icy policeman who wants every lookout tower on full alert…  With exquisite music by Jerry Goldsmith, Delbert Mann's 'Night Crossing' makes us realize the true value of freedom…  Final thoughts:   There are a few moments in everyone's life, certainly in public lives, that can define a person...  For those of us old enough to remember the Reagan presidency, seeing the clips again in the wake of his death makes it seem like those events happened just yesterday, or last week. The voice, the expressions, are all so familiar. But for a large percentage of people, these events might as well have happened fifty years ago, if not more. They are part of the distant past. President Reagan is a name, and not much more. President Gorbachev is another name, and not much more. So how can we remember these two men who had such a huge impact on their country?  Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to tear down the Berlin Wall and to steer their superpower nations away from nuclear confrontation",1
"An interesting and involved film about a ""lifer"" just trying to live out his days peacefully. Elements of the main character appear in Michael Mann's later films, like Thief (1981), Heat (1995), and so on. You can see this one at the UCLA Instructional Media Laboratory-- one of the only places in the country that has copies readily available to the public. It's a great one!",1
"This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.  As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien  Plot: *1/2 out of ****  Sex/nudity: *** out of ****",0
"This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner ""Karmen"" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual ""Karmen,"" the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of ""Basic-Instinct"" meets ""Bound"" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.",0
"This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.  Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.",0
Not the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too.,0
"This film is bundled along with ""Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto"" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though ""Il Prezzo del Potere"" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.  As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.  In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.  Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.",0
"I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a ""B"" movie - it's a made for TV ""B"" movie.",0
"Since I am a fan of Natalie Portman, I had to see the movie. I enjoyed every minute of it. It plays out in a very sincere way. Throughout the whole movie at seemed as if Natalie was the mother and Susan was the mother. Susan's character kept making bad decisions and kept getting burned because of it.  I heard that there was supposed to be a love scene involving Natalie and some-guy (he's in Outside Providence) but Natalie would only accept the script if that scene was removed. And I think that is great. I think that a love scene would have ruined the tone of the film.  Natalie must have a knack for picking good movies to be in because I haven't seen her in a bad film yet. So, any movie that has Natalie Portman will no doubt be seen by me.  A good film. 7/10",1
"The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.  Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.  You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.",0
"This is the greatest movie if you want inspiration on following your heart and never giving up on your dream. Elizabeth Taylor is Velvet and in her prime (of her childhood, at least), Mickey Rooney is a cynical friend who eventually becomes her trainer and they go off to the Grand National steeplechase with her beloved horse ""the Pi""--short for ""Pirate""--only to have Velvet become the jockey and have a chance at victory. To those of you who have not seen it yet, I won't give away the ending but you should see it and once you do you'll love it. Notice a very young Angela Lansbury as Velvet's eldest sister.",1
"I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.  The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.  Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.  Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...  On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.",0
"Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While ""art"" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror/comedy.  Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is ""different"" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, ""Thriller."" However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.  It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson – though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings – there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again!",1
"I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it – the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s – remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world – like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?",1
The Wind and the Lion is well written and superbly acted. It is a tale that exemplifies the American spirit and the American character. This movie is a story from the early 20th century that is strangely relevant to the political landscape of the world in the beginning of the 21st century. It is a true classic.,1
"Betty and Boris eye each other at a junior dance when they're still kids, but unfortunately Hugh gets to her first and thirty years later when we tune back in--Betty is married to Hugh and putting up with his fussy mother, who also lives with them.  Neither Boris, nor Betty, however, have forgotten each other and when their paths cross again, they soon declare their feelings.  But Betty feels she can't divorce Hugh, a Councilman, it would hurt him too much. What Betty doesn't know is, Hugh isn't hurting at all. He's rolling in the sheets with his beautiful secretary Meredith.  Boris, an undertaker, thinks he has the answer. They'll fake her death.  Christopher Walken plays Frank Featherbed, an outrageous, competing undertaker in their medium-sized town--that causes additional problems for Boris and Betty.  All kinds of complications arise as Boris and Betty try to pull off this major coup.  There are laugh out-loud scenes, some delightful dancing, and nary a curse word to be heard. In short, the film was a pleasure to watch.  10 stars.",1
"The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed.   If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.",0
"It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle.   Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie ""Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus"" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed ""The Indian Runner"".  In ""The Evil That Men Do"", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five ""Death Wish"" flicks.   Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!!   Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that ""The Evil That Men Do"" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?  No stars. Watch ""Death Wish"" instead. At least IT was topical.",0
"Naturally Sadie is by far the worst show i have ever seen, it is such a piece of sh** and loaded with complete bullsh**. I didn't find any of the gags to be funny or somewhat clever, it was all awful jokes.  The acting sucks, many of the characters sucked at acting, Charlotte Arnold (Sadie) is such a terrible actor, the other characters suck too (Magaret, Rain, Hal).  The plot isn't unique and creative at all and the show is soo very much predictable. This is one of the worst shows made of all time, it shouldn't have even been made, the idiots who are responsible of writing this garbage should get fired (if they already didn't) The fist season was actually watchable but the second season was just a disaster, its too hard to watch this show, it is beyond awful.",0
"To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them ""attacking"". It builds up to it, it's not an ""all-of-a-sudden"" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest ""horror"" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible ""unable to act"" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!",0
This movie has inspired me to be a better person. In life you don't know who you will run across and sometimes our prejudice will cause us to prejudge a person wrongly. I have learned to give a person the benefit of the doubt because of this movie. I also learned that tough love can build a stronger person. Now I want to know where to find the movie soundtrack. There are songs in this soundtrack I have been trying to get for years. May I comment on the acting for a second. Jamie Fox was outstanding. The man has risen to be the actor of actors. Also the performance of Regina King was awesome. If I can get a woman to look at me the way she looked at Ray...I can only dream. I plucked down $18.00 for this movie and I don't have a lot of money but I am willing to see this movie again and again. This movie touched me.,1
"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning   As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.  The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **",0
"A teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG.",0
"What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.",0
"Four lovely young nurses in their last year of nursing school experience all kinds of turmoil and excitement in their lives: sweet Susan (winsome brunette Elaine Giftos) tries to comfort the bitter, terminally ill Greg (a moving performance by Darrell Larson), eager, but neurotic Phred (lovely blonde Karen Carlson) romances handsome gynecologist Jim Caspar (affable Lawrence Casey), free-spirited hippie Priscilla (the stunningly gorgeous Barbara Leigh) gets impregnated by laid-back drug dealer Les (the solid Richard Rust), and compassionate Lynn (nicely played by Brioni Farrell) helps out angry Mexican revolutionary Victor Charlie (the excellent Reni Santoni). Despite the fact that this film was made for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures, it's anything but your standard mindless piece of leering soft-core schlock. Instead, it's a very pleasant, charming and even often thoughtful time capsule of the social and political upheavals of the groovy early 70's (the subplot involving Lynn and the revolutionaries is especially potent and provocative). Special kudos are in order for director Stephanie Rothman, who brings a welcome and refreshing intelligence and sensitivity to the material. Moreover, the four attractive and appealing female leads all turn in sound and praiseworthy work. Scottie MacGregor likewise impresses as wise supervisor Ms. Boswell and ubiquitous 70's trailer voice guy Ronald Gans supplies the off-screen voice of a psychiatrist. Stevan Larner's polished cinematography, the fantastic rock soundtrack, and the flavorsome folksy'n'funky score by Clancy B. Grass III are all up to speed. A real sleeper.",1
"The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.  Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US.   Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all.   Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence.   There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building.",1
"I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with ""Hawken's Breed"") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. ""Dark Obsession"" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above ""Hawken's Breed"" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.  This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.  I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.",0
"I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it ""Solomon Kane"" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.  It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).  With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say ""From the creator of Conan"" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new ""Conan"" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three ""boss levels"" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.  If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.",0
Kannathil Muthamittal is for sure a great movie. I have to give it to Mani Ratnam for a great directing job and A.R. Rahman for great songs. The camera work is just excellent and is similar to Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. I will be shocked if this movie does not win an Oscar for Best Foreign Film or even Best Camera Work.,1
"This show is sheer entertainment and doesn't try to be a Greek drama. It certainly contains elements of one what with all the plot twists, but it's immensely engaging and fun. Las Vegas is the perfect setting for a show and they will certainly never have a lack of material to work with! Anything and Everything DOES happen there! The actors in this show are extremely personable and you really do want to see what they are up to and into each week. The show is also very funny. The humor arises from the characters and situations. Not just thrown in gratuitously. It's a well-crafted show in that regard. It certainly makes me look forward to Friday nights and I'm glad I now own the first two seasons on DVD!",1
"This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was ""There was no Taylor"". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...  Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben.",1
"Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.  I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.  The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.  Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.  Not so.  While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.  Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.",0
"""Electra Glide in Blue"" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, ""EG in B"" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.",0
"Set in 1962 Hong Kong (in turbulent times, as we are informed), this extremely intimate story of a failed romance between a two married people tied to their traditions manages to recall the essence of old Hollywood in scene after scene of lush colors, evocative yet restrained sensuality (as opposed of the requisite sexuality and occasional nude scenes which has become part of the norm of a romance in film), and the use of facial expressions to suggest subtle changes in mood or communication. It's not hard to see the influence of Marguerite Duras here, since she is known for minimalism in storytelling as well as describing powerful drama using the art of verbal and non-verbal conversation between two characters with a strong bond as well as the use of re-enacting scenes that could eventually take place in both the characters' lives. From Hiroshima MON AMOUR to MODERATO CANTABILE, her pen is strongly visible here from the moment we enter the cramped rooms of Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) to the last scenes which explain the intensity of regret that he feels as he recalls the opportunity which was lost in reaffirming this relationship.  The plot even resembles something that Duras could have written: Mr. Chow and Mrs. Su Li-zhen, neighbors in a tenement apartment while both being fairly successful professionals, begin to discover in the most banal of ways that their spouses are cheating on them, and they discover quite naturally, it's with each other. The question is, should they act upon what they also feel towards each other or not be like their partners? Every scene plays with the notion that at any moment they will give in to each other, and at one point, it is suggested that eventually they do though as intrusive as the camera is in detailing to us their encounters (which seem to occur on a daily basis as seen by the frequent changes of Cheung's dresses), we never see it. And just as not seeing either of their spouses heightens their own love story, not seeing them carry through with their attraction makes the eventual separation even the more bitter because at every moment we want for something to happen -- some catalyst -- and the only one which comes is when Leung reveals to her that he loves her, followed by his quietly brutal revelation that she will never leave her husband, which implies that neither will he. It also gives us a glimpse of what culture and timing can do: from a Western point of view, a consummation of their romance into a more solid, lasting affair would have been possible especially in the 60s, but as it's Hong Kong, cultural values are markedly different.  Performances here are of the high order: it's very easy to play a torrid love affair, but to continually play a repressed, platonic relationship that is brimming with desire only barely suggested is hard and makes all the sensuality more cerebral than palpable or visual. Cheung and Leung smolder and their blighted chemistry lingers long after the credits have rolled.",1
"Sleeper Cell is what 24 should have been. 24 is a cartoon. (I watch 24 but feel cheated with every stupid episode, all four or five seasons so far. Who can keep track as they are all the same. Jack gets in trouble, Jack gets out of trouble and then immediately gets back in to trouble and then...) Sleeper Cell is really well done and is far superior. Unfortunately they blew it with the ending in season two. I can think of a half dozen better endings off the top of my head that would have worked better for the writer's obvious goals and not been so contrived. Shame on the writers for wrecking what had been up to that ending a really good series.",1
"Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!",1
"Like many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.  Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because ""it isn't fair!?"" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?  What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, úber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...",0
"I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!",0
"I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.  I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the ""valuable lesson"" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.  Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.  I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.",1
"*SPOILERS*  I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.  Or so they thought.  This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.  This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say ""Dada!"" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.  Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.  This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good ""bad"" movie.  *** out ****",1
"I just wish I was eloquent enough to say how GOOD this movie is.  I...it's hard to say.  Maybe I'll just say what comes to mind.  I laughed. I really laughed. I couldn't believe it. I laughed, and, it wasn't bitter-laughter. it wasn't cynical laughter. it was the laughter that is generated by genuine joy.  joy. that's a foreign word for me. i don't feel that word often, but, i did while watching this movie.  Will. Maybe it's Will's face. He is a great human being. ""Smile on my face and there's a twinkle in my eye."" That line in one of Will's songs describes him perfectly. He has ""joie de vivre"". Trey is a lucky, lucky boy to have a daddy like Will. Jada is a lucky, lucky woman to have a husband like Will. He is someone...special.  Happy. I actually feel happy. It's a strange feeling. I don't feel this way very often. It's just so nice to see, to see...other people really happy. I mean really happy. In this movie, I did. As Will says in the movie, ""Maybe I'm not happy with just 'fine', maybe I want 'extraordinary."" You know, watching this movie made me think: so do I.  Fun. Being yourself. We all know we're supposed to be ourselves, but, it feels like we're punished if we do so. Maybe it has to be earned. Maybe it's something that we show after having not been ourselves for a long time. That's why I just loved the ending. Will, Eva Mendes, Kevin James, Amber Valleta, Julie Ann emery all dancing at the wedding. Dancing without inhibitions. NO THEY WE'RE NOT DRUNK! except, on actually being happy. I can understand that, at least, I think I can (at least, I enjoyed seeing them happy, really happy).  Women and Men. I don't know anything about relationships, but, I do feel. Watching this movie I feel like connecting with someone, striving, pushing, wanting to be with someone. It seems to make life...something else entirely. I don't really know. I'm just guessing. but, I felt something, watching this movie. I felt like, that connection, must be...must make, life worthwhile.  That's the kind of movie this is. It's FUNNY. It's CLEVER. It's TENDER. It evokes feeling. It made me think, that maybe, just maybe, life is, truly is, a wonderful thing.  Want to LAUGH? Want to FEEL REALLY GOOD! Want to GET SOME ANSWERS ABOUT GIRLS (and Girls, answers about Guys)? Watch Hitch. YOU-WILL-GET-IT-ALL!!!  GO WILL!!! You are a great human being.",1
"I think this movie was made as good as it could have been. With only 4 months and a 52000$ budget - I'm surprised this wasn't worse. If you are not to care about the CG or special effects, this movie is great.  Okay, the movie is not that well made (I'm sure it could have been but, you try to do better in only 4 months) but the story is good and the movie is rather exciting.  DOn't trust me when I say that this movie is good, cause I also find the 1933 King Kong to be good.  I must confess that I didn't watch the complete movie either... I might have fast forwarded some minutes here and there...",1
"I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.",0
"If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box.",1
"This movie is a absolute masterpiece!, 'Tromeo and Juliet' has all the Kinky Sex, Car Crashes, Mutations and a Penis Monster that Shakespeare always wanted but never got! This is Shakespeares classic retold, Troma Style! Tromeo and Juliet is about two rival familys named; the Que's and the Capulet's, non of the familys ever got along ever since Cappy Capulet (Juliet's father) screwed Monty Que (Tromeo's father) in the filmmaking business. Two rival familys grow apart, until Tromeo and Juliet find true love together and when each side hear of this..blood shed is the least that happens!..Yes! Tromeo and Juliet is the Troma classic adored by fans world wide! Witness Harry Balls (The Penis Monster) first feature film! and also has Lemmy's first Troma appearance...what are you waiting for?? Now go out and rent the movie!!   10/10",1
"I was lucky enough to see the ""Horror Classics"" DVD version of this film before it was mysteriously removed from the 4 film DVD and replaced with something else. The picture and sound quality of the film on that edition was a nightmare in itself. Yet, that version is STILL superior to the one with the deluxe DVD treatment. The reason was stated in Brad Fiedel's interview segments on the Special Edition DVD. He had noted what I first found so striking about this film. This being the use of music at moments of inactivity in the film, but leaving the moments of activity in silence, thus giving the horror scenes a stronger feel. The problem with this reissue is it carries the extra film score used to fill in these intentional gaps in score. Fiedel complained of this and made it clear that the filler music was not his. The music actually sounded a lot like Howard Shore's work for Videodrome. Sad for me that I am also a major fan of that film and have to associate the two.  The film itself managed to add some interesting realistic elements to the genre horror film. A group of friends go up on a mountain one of them inherited. On the mountain they are confronted with a family with a nightmarish secret. The movie moves along at a great pace. In fact every time I have seen it, I still find myself shocked to see 45 minutes had passed before things started really going wrong for the campers.  While the Horror Classics version is filled with many gaps, the fact that there is no score accompanying the horror scenes is what makes this film intelligent and even superior to most slasher films I have ever seen. The Director Jeff Lieberman had made some unique horror films previous to this one making this one the most mainstream and yet, very different to the mainstream at the same time. It is a good fun film with surprising acting performances to boot. The new spiffed up DVD version is worth a rent, the now collectors item Horror Classics version, now OOP is worth the hunt.",1
"This is one of those movies that are very underrated. Again i am voting for an underrated movie. This movie has a good story line, maybe a bit farfetched but it could happen. Sean Astin(one of my favorite actors) again shows us a good performance. The guy does a great job in acting but never gets recognized for his roles. He has done well since the goonies. Not only him but Louis Gosset JR. does a swell job. I thought maybe this movie would have made more money in theaters but who cares about money anyways. All around this is a good movie that will have you at the edge of your seat at times and the plot will keep the movie moving itself. I enjoyed this movie and hopefully the rest of you will as well.",1
"My two daughters (ages 11 and 13) and I were lucky enough to see a screening of this movie last night. We were all pleasantly surprised to see how entertaining and funny this movie was. David Duchovny was very appealing as the male lead and Minnie Driver gave her usually competent performance. Some of the scenes are laugh out loud funny - especially one scene Minnie Driver has with a fellow ""transplant"" donee. I liked the fact that it was a movie that I could watch with my children and I wasn't embarrassed by any scene whatsoever. Everyone in the movie theater was laughing and enjoying themselves. Thumbs up Bonnie Hunt!",1
"what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...  was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...  This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!",0
"This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.  Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.  There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.",0
"Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?  'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.  The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.  Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.  Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.  A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.  Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.  Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.  He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.  In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.  The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.  At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.  Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love.   Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.  Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.  I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.  The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.  At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?  Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.  If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?",0
"A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.  Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.",0
"Someone commented that Charlie Sheen's character should be court martialed for doing whatever he wanted. You may be right, but that is how SEAL's truly are. I served for several months with a SEAL team out of Norfolk, VA. Actually, I should say they used our ship to deploy themselves around Europe for a couple of months. I was the postal clerk on board and everyday these guys would try to get their mail. Since only one person was allowed to pick up the mail each day we issued one pass to one person. Each day a different SEAL would come up pretending to be someone else. Well, after the third time I said no to them until I had proof who they were. They went NUTS!!! I thought they were gonna bust through my cage, gag me, and then steal the mail. Luckily I had not only the President on my side (The Navy), but the Federal Government (US Mail). That was the only time I saw the SEALs stopped from having whatever they wanted. They were allowed unlimited shore leave, where we had to be back on ship at a certain time. They killed and tortured a woman in France and the two SEAL's only got a 1 week detention on ship, whereas a Seamen was caught stealing a bottle of wine from a French wine shop and he got a court martial. Is it any wonder why the SEAL's retention rate is over 85%? As a SEAL you are god. So this movie does a pretty accurate job of portraying how a SEAL acts and thinks... unfortunately it is so unbelievable to normal people that it comes off as being fake.",0
"A young woman, Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander), and her boyfriend, Jess (Joey Mendicino) become targets for a deranged serial killer after stopping for a 'comfort break' at a remote road-side rest-stop.  What might have been an effectively scary chiller in more competent hands, turns out to be a confusing, ill-considered mess under the sloppy direction of John Shiban (who also wrote the screenplay). There is a good deal of juicy violence, a brief smattering of nudity, and confident performances from the cast, but the silly script leaves the viewer with so many unanswered questions one cannot help but feel disappointed.  On the surface, the film plays out like a standard cliché-ridden 'killer-on-the-loose' movie, but Shiban (an ex-writer for the X-files) throws in some subtle supernatural elements which suggest that his aim was something else entirely: a ghost story, with the rest stop acting as home to a vengeful spectre out to punish sinners.  By reading up on the film, checking out viewers' theories here on IMDb, and watching the extras on the DVD, certain plot elements begin to make a little more sense (although, even with the advantage of extra information, there are still many questions left unanswered). In my opinion, any film that requires this much investigation to make itself (only partially) understood is not particularly a good one.",0
"The Salena Incident is set in Arizona where six death row inmates are being transfered from the state prison for reasons never explained, while driving along the heavily armed prison bus gets a flat & the driver is forced to pull off the road. Then two blonde birds turn up & after seducing the incompetent prison guards manage to get the better of them, the six prisoners are released but in a shoot-out their getaway car is damaged leaving them all stranded in the middle of the Arizona desert. They decide to head to the nearest town, Salena several miles away & take the cops with them as hostage. Once they reach Salena they find it odd that the place is completely deserted with not one single other person in sight. They soon discover that the entire town has been killed by flesh eating aliens & they are firmly placed on the menu...  Also known as Alien Invasion Arizona in the US on DVD & apparently having the working title Terror Town this rubbishy low budget sci-fi horror flick was co-written, co-produced & directed by Dustin Rikert & has no real redeeming features at all, to be frank The Salena Incident is the sort of film which gives films a bad name. The film could roughly be divided into two parts, the opening forty or fifty odd minutes focuses on the prisoners in a thriller feeling opening, the guards & the escape although it's pretty poorly written & staged stuff. The dialogue between the two blonde birds & the prison guards is so bad it's unintentionally funny as the two fit birds chat up the two not so fit prison guards. Funny stuff actually, unfortunately The Salena Incident is supposed to be a sci-fi horror film not a comedy. Then once the escaped cons & their prison guard hostages arrive at Salena it goes into sci-fi horror mode as the aliens turn up & start killing our clichéd character's off which is good because they are annoying. Look, the whole film sucks as it's badly written, thought out & made. I can't really be bothered to go into why but trust me The Salena Incident is awful on every level.  As well as being just a bad, boring & stupid film The Salena Incident is also poorly made. The action set-piece scenes are awful, the aliens looks terrible & are never shown on screen at the same time as the human character's & as such it's sometimes difficult to tell what's happening. The special effects are poor too, the aliens look rubbish & the CGI computer effects are absolutely terrible as well. The editing is poor, the cinematography is poor, the sets are cheap & the whole thing is just an eyesore really. There's a bit of gore, there's some gunshot wounds, someone is ripped in half & a severed hand is seen.  Obviously shot on a low budget The Salena Incident has low production values & looks cheap from start to finish. Filmed in Superior in Arizona. The acting is terrible from no-one I have ever heard of although the actress who plays the female doctor is pretty good looking.  The Salena Incident is a rubbish sci-fi horror film that is terrible in just about every way, not worth 90 minutes of yours, mine or anyone else's time.",0
"Although a ""woman's story,"" I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.  Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than ""Ann's"" (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's.   With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.  In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.  Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success.",1
"Dark Harbor is a moody little excursion into murky emotional waters that run extremely deep. It's basically a 3-character piece, featuring a finely-layered performance by the always-great Rickman, with Polly Walker and Norman Reedus (also excellent) forming the other two sides of this strange triangle. A perfect late-night cable film, with a surprise ending to boot.",1
"Is there a fire fighter cliché that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line ""I'm getting too old for this"" through the ""antics"" of the firemen, to the ""worrisome wife"" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney (""Our studies show that audiences really like it when..."" and then they stuck it in).  There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen.   Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.",0
"Every time I watch this film, it just really makes me wanna go out and have a good night! My mate uses ""the weekend has landed"" speech to psyche himself up before going out! and so do I...sometimes.   This film is a great debut for the writer/director - well done mate!  The acting is great, all the characters are believable and are larger than life! The 'weird' scenes are a joy to watch, Jip's running Mr floppy flashbacks/explanations/visualizations are all great! The scene in the huuuuuuuge pub when everyone stands up and starts singing the mock national anthem is a laugh too. There's loads of comedy here - Howard Marks' 'spliff politics' speech is hilarious!  Oh god, you just need to see this. Mind you, I felt the film did somewhat glorify the use of ecstacy, but hey, that's the truth of the matter eh? At least the film doesn't shy away from this fact. I suppose the film does carry a decent message to it as well - don't take life TOO seriously, you have to let you hair down sometime. And of course the chat in the pub when Moff tries to explain to his mates that he's coming off the drugs is a sure reminder that when the come down's out-way the good times, you know the party's over!  This is at times a very clever film in it's use of the camera, lighting, etc. It was a realised piece of cinema, and a great feel-good tale of mates, love, clubs, and drugs.  Get outta the 'rat race' people!!!  8/10  Enjoy!",1
"This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.  The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.  I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information ""MOLEY75"" ""Strawn"" is the gaelic pronunciation of ""Strachan"".",1
"Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that. The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film.   As for what Begotten is about, the ""rape of the environment and rebirth"" theory feels pretty accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to you.   Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare. What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house/experimental fan and you haven't yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know that I won't.",1
"After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-based reality/invention.  Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.  There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.",1
"I didn't think this movie was very good at all. Basically they took a bunch of one-liners from various Shirley Temple movies, threw them together, and had Orr act like Shirley Temple acted on-screen. ""Oh my goodness!"" was said quite a number of times. If you are familiar with Shirley Temple movies, you will recognize several lines direct from her movies. The trouble is they have Orr saying these in Shirley's everyday life. In the end, what we get is a hodgepodge of re-created Shirley Temple movies, instead of any sort of real look into Shirley Temple's life. Save yourself the trouble and rent Shirley Temple movies, it's a lot better than watching Orr try and recreate Shirley's acting style.",0
"Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.  The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.  My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.  As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.  My rating: 2/10  Rated R for language.",0
"I have to say it is a sign that this film appeals to all ages if somebody by right should be shielding themselves away from anything remotely homosexual absolutely loves this thing.  I thought every last bit of this film was amazing and the casting was superb, but I have to say Anna Chancellor...where have YOU been all my life.  Having previously seen Anna in several other things I was completely blown away by how magnificent she was.  Diana Letherby may not be the most lovable of the characters but she could certainly take me home if she fancied...",1
"Very enjoyable 50's Western. I have it in my collection and recommend it to Western fans.  Mostly Victor Mature's movie and quite well done in my estimation.  He's a trapper who joins a frontier post as a scout. Red Cloud caught three of them on their land and took their possessions. They all joined as scouts after their loss.  Victor has set his eye's on the Colonel's wife and lives life on the post without much regards to regulations.  Action done quite convincingly but no great depth or much feeling to other characters.  50's Westerns are my favorites and this slides easily to a satisfaction. A Western of this kind is in the pages of the past and perhaps never to be made much again. One to enjoy. Gave it a 7 rating. Likely 6.8 worthy but films like these become more precious over time.  For film-noir fans...""The Big Steal"" ""They Live By Night"" ""Side Street"" are most wonderful movies to be enjoyed. Bought and viewed. Noir seems to resemble Westerns in a way. Some long ago and never forever.",1
"An interesting pairing of stories, this little flick manages to bring together seemingly different characters and story lines all in the backdrop of WWII and succeeds in tying them together without losing the audience. I was impressed by the depth portrayed by the different characters and also by how much I really felt I understood them and their motivations, even though the time spent on the development of each character was very limited. The outstanding acting abilities of the individuals involved with this picture are easily noted. A fun, stylized movie with a slew of comic moments and a bunch more head shaking events.  7/10",1
"Having seen the movie years ago and been disappointed by its squandered potential, when I heard that it was becoming a TV series, I flatly refused to watch it. My best friend became a rabid fan immediately, and knowing my love for horror movies, could not believe that I wouldn't watch a single episode. I told him that the movie had scarred me for life as far as anything BUFFY was concerned, and he told me to forget that the movie even existed. He insisted that I give two episodes a shot: ""Once More With Feeling"" and this one.  Both of them are why I am a BUFFY fan today. He was right - I was hooked immediately. I have never seen a show with the guts to dare try an episode that has next to no dialogue, and nothing else could've pulled it off with the panache and the pure creativity of BUFFY. I think X FILES might've gotten away with it if they'd thought of it first, but I'm glad that BUFFY did it instead.   It is a credit to everyone involved that you are riveted for the entire hour, sometimes hanging onto the edge of your seat. And when it was all over, I craved to know more about every character. So I went out and bought the Season One boxed set. And the rest is history...  I guarantee you that if you've never seen it, either, you'll want to see more if you make this episode your first.   The only reason I'm not giving it 10 out of 10 is because I'm reserving that score for ""Once More...""",1
"When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.",0
"I was drawn to ""Friends"" by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called ""Seasons"", then I found the Elton John song ""Friends"" thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of ""Friends"" came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. ""The Graduate"" ""Easy Rider"") now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with ""Last Tango in Paris"". The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little ""aged"" now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. ""Friends"" is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today.",1
"Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).  While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.  Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review ""not helpful"", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide.",0
"I just took my 11 year old daughter and 8 year old son to this movie and I can't remember a movie where I laughed SO hard -- literal out loud, deep bursts of laughter because this movie is hilarious. Granted the story line is predictable but the ride is so extremely enjoyable it doesn't matter that you know how it's going to end. The actors' comedic senses of timing were impeccable. The actors were perfectly cast. My children mentioned that Amanda Bynes seems to be the last of the young women actresses who aren't ruining their lives. She is so refreshing. My children said this is now their favorite movie of 2006. Our money was well spent on this movie.",1
"I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.  In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.  Pornographic? - Hardly!.  Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.  R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.  Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.  I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of ""scientific proof"" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.  Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.",1
"This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.  The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.  However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone.",1
"Not a bad MOW. I was expecting another film based on womens issues but was pleasantly surprised at the element of suspense. Sure, parts of the plot were pretty hokey but for the most part the movie kept me guessing. Was the nut bar connected with the ex husband, somebody in the tavern or was it the guy (person) that she cut off? Daniel Magder was excellent. I've seen him in Mom's on Strike and in Guilt by Association, both MOW's and he is very creditable, especially the way he challenges his mother the way a preteen would typically act.  Laura Leighton also played the typical mother (ex-wife) that both men and women can relate to. She was frustrated enough to seem real.  See it if you missed it. It's worthwhile.",1
"As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.  Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.  The signs are ominous from the off – ""Tony Tenser Presents"" go the titles. You scratch your head – ""Where have I seen that name before..?"" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.  Then it says – ""A Menahem Golan Production"". Oh dear.  From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.  Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.  I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment ""Umm…old Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!"" I guess it was a payday for them.  A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought ""Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds""   And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.  I went there once. It was a depressing place.",0
"This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!"" well you're wrong, dead wrong.",0
"I loved it. In fact, I watched it over and over and over, and I could watch it again. This movie doesn't get boring.  The vampire concept is revolutionized in this movie. It's a job well done, great for today's generation.  Wesley Snipes was born for this role. Stephen Dorff was an ideal vampire. Arly Jover, mmmm mmm, she can bite me any time she wants and what a sexy accent she has. Donal Logue provides great comical relief.  This vampire movie is like no other. I can't wait for Blade 2.",1
"We went to the cinema expecting a biggish budget release and got an art-house movie. The movie was projected digitally onto about two thirds of the screen real estate with sloping edges classic of digital projection, and had a limited stereo soundtrack which was wasted on the cinema experience.  The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick. Live action scenes what little of them there were, were re-used constantly in classic documentary style, which became annoying after a while.  I was somewhat amazed that only 4 people turned up to watch it, guess the rest knew something we didn't.  I suspect the producers made the film to recognize the ninetieth anniversary of Gallipoli. I have to question whether they should have bothered.  Seven out of Ten for trying, and out of respect for the ANZAC's.",1
"Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same. They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in this case is played by Justin Henry.  What I really did like about Kramer vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game. He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also wants out of being a mother, at least for a while.  Hoffman and Henry make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody.  Both parents make compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the tie is always broken in favor of the mother.  Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen.  Dustin Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid. I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy in his performance.  Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast.",1
"A funny and scathing critique of Russian society and culture during the transition from communism, OKNO V PARIZH also shows the west in an unfavorable light. A group of Russians living in St. Petersburg (a.k.a. Peter the Great's ""window on the west"") find a magic portal that instantly transports them to Paris. Mamin's film is truly hilarious, and just ""weird"" enough constantly keep even the jaded film viewer on his toes. The songs, the dream sequences, and the deliciously disgusting fringes of society from both cultures mingle to create a memorable and meaningful film. Anyone trying to understand the shift in Russian cultural sentiments since the fall of the USSR should begin here.",1
"Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.  Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacks—Brennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.  As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.  To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).  If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.",0
"This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike (Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students!",1
"Although the plot of this film is a bit far-fetched, it is worth seeing just for the performances of Michaels Caine and Gambon. The latter delivers a truly wonderful Dublin accent. Caine hams it up...which is exactly what the character he is playing should do. Entertaining and fun, this is a hour and a half of easy watching.",1
"Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry/black/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.  With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry/black/dark humour/satire and are all at least 5/10.  Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too.",0
"The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.  Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.  The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.  To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.",0
"John Carpenter's brilliantly suspenseful flick is a great fusion of Sci-Fi and horror, adopting the classic body-swap theme and taking it to the extreme. A remake of the Howard Hawks produced 1951 original, Carpenter keeps the Cold-War themes of paranoia and trust as a backdrop of alien takeover and impending doom amidst madness and the isolation of the Antarctic setting. Carpenter's direction as always is excellent as his camera glides through the lonely world of the characters whose inhabitable environment is about to be corrupted by the primordial fear of body takeover. But here and much like the work of David Cronenberg, Carpenter doesn't hold back on the incident, as through some fantastic special effects we are witness to some insane moments of surreal gore. However, he never loses touch with the human side of the story, as in the face of everything shocking happening in front of us, we are left with perceived notions of trust and suspicion.  9/10",1
"My comment is mainly a comment on the first commentator (the extra on the film) and his unhappy assessment of the film. I think his perspective indicates why an extra is an extra and a director is a director. The film was sweet, the acting sufficient, the experience of watching it a nice diversion from a busy work week. It wasn't ""The Hours"" (acting), or ""The Matrix"" (Special Effects), or even ""The Color Purple"" (Direction). Most movies won't be. But it also wasn't the crap fest that ""vinny..."" would lead you to believe. Sorry guy, just my 2 cents.  As to the movie itself, it was in the end very gay affirming (+ #1). It showed a world full of diverse and less than perfect people--you know, just like ours (+ #2)! It opened a door on one culture without excluding other cultures (+ #3). And I liked the music (+ #4).",1
"When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.  The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it Jürgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.  Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.  The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.  Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.  For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it.",0
"For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.  The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.  The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.  I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.",0
"Early Jackie Chan film where there is no sign of the Chan persona we know. This is Chan in a full on traditional revenge tale of the sort that was cloned and re-cloned by countless producers and studios all through Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China. Its a very serious story that shows none of the humor and warmth that would catapult Jackie Chan to super stardom. Its also clear from watching this that had he not reinvented himself odds are we would never have known him because his career would have been painfully short. As a film on its own merits this is a good looking but pretty unremarkable movie. I was watching it, in the midst of an all day marathon of martial arts films and it would have blended together with every other film that I watched that day had I not noticed Jackie in the film. Honestly I don't think the film is really worth bothering with (there are too many other better variations) except if you're interested in seeing where Jackie Chan started.",0
"Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!  This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.  Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.  Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.  Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.  Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).  Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.",0
"During the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad ""Yamato 2520"", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless ""Harlock Saga"", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.  If you've seen ""Queen Millennia"", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.  This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.  The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.  If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank me.",0
"I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too ""melodramatic"" but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit ""unusual"".. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:)",1
"Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in ""Of Mice and Men."" The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.  The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.  ~Chris C.",0
"Stan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in ""Mud and Sand"" (a parody of Rudolph Valntino's ""Blood and Sand""), but I think a film like this really works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to do without it. I watched this the day after watching ""Blood and Sand"" itself; it certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where.  The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires.  This is the best Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have had a chance to see the source material.",1
"Ninja Hunter (AKA Wu Tang vs Ninja) is pure entertainment from start to finish due to its outrageous characters, nonsensical plot and lack of any pretensions whatsoever. The makers of this film have given us a truly OTT masterpiece which has to be seen to be believed.  The plot centres around Wu Tang villain, Abbot White, who wants to destroy the Shaolin monks and become supreme martial artist. In order to do so, he teams up with a clan of Ninjas, led by three masters – gold lamé ninja, white mustachioed ninja and black ninja – and succeeds in destroying the Shaolin temple and most of its inhabitants. However, there are some survivors. It is their job to pass on the knowledge of the Shaolin finger jab to a new generation, who must defeat the ninjas and Abbott White if peace and order is to be restored.  Unfortunately, Abbott White is a difficult foe to beat, since he is able to make himself virtually indestructible by sucking the life force out of hot naked chicks (an excuse for some welcome gratuitous nudity!).  Other treats in store for viewers include loads of very impressive fighting (despite some of it being speeded up), some really amazing outfits (the aforementioned gold lamé ninja, Abbott White's Yin Yang suits, and even some assassins wearing Swastika tunics), a ninja turning into a flying carpet, plus some cheesy gore for good measure. And I nearly forgot to mention the really impressive eyebrows on display in this movie – surely a good reason not to pass up on this gem.",1
"The movie is made in a style that resembles Lock, stock and two smoking barrels, with lot's of subplots, fancy camerawork, cool music and that great tongue-in-cheek Aussie type of humor you'll find nowhere else. How this movie has escaped the European and American audience is a mystery!",1
"-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT",1
"Often when TV series are transferred to the big screen, they lose their appeal. Not in this case! The historical accuracy in costumes, equipment and general art direction, like the TV series, is outstanding. A good example of comedy and farce, with excellent script and comedy actors in the right parts. Based on a classic TV series that stands alone in British TV Comedy history.",1
I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan.,1
"This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.  The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.  The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).  For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?",0
"The main criticism of AT THE EARTH'S CORE is that it's cheap, the special effects are bad and so on and so forth. Yes, some of the special effects are painfully bad but what a lot of folks overlook about it is that it's actually quite fun, which is very important in my book.  In comparison, just look at the latest STAR WARS films: they have the latest, greatest special effects created by the latest technological advances which are capable in creating stunning visual effects as far reaching as the human imagination can imagine and yet, with all the razzle dazzle, those films were as exciting as a funeral. As Yoda would say, Fun they're not! In other words, who cares if the FX aren't the greatest when the spirit of the film is fast-paced, humorous and clearly set on the side of action. I love everything about AT THE EARTH'S CORE: the contrast between stodgy Victorian England VS the wild other-worldly, colorful setting of Pellucidar, the cast of characters, the concept of a lost underground world, the telepathic Pterodactyls, the human slaves rebelling, Jubal the ugly one (lol!), the inspired teaming of Peter Cushing (who's great!) and Doug McClure, the excellent music (it's really good), cinematography by the amazing Alan Hume and last but not least, Caroline Munro. She's effing sexy in this movie. One of the sexiest B-movie babes ever captured on screen.  Seriously, anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't know what fun is. Gimme AT THE EARTH'S CORE over any turgid STAR WARS prequels any time! At least it has Caroline Munro, which no CGI fx can ever recreate.",1
"I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.  The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.  However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.",0
"A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she ""check the children,"" Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.  If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.  Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.  This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a ""chick flick"". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.  Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7/10.",1
"No, I have not seen the original series and I won't compare the two if I had. This series is filmed in Canada in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia. The series is well-written in a different story each week. Some are little out there but most of the time it is the quality of the story telling. I loved the Afterlife episode with Clancy Brown and Barbara Gerrick and the Deprogrammers episode with the irresistible Brent Spiner as a Deprogrammer in a world where humans have become slaves to a lizard reptilian species. It's funny how the lizards and reptiles are our favorite evil aliens like V but anyway he has three days to program a man who is totally brainwashed in serving the alien species on earth. The stories are usually a little out there but very entertaining to watch.",1
"I'll be brief: I normally hate films like this venomously ... but there is just something about this one that just draws me in and won't let me go. Granted, there are some major flaws in it (some of the acting is below par at best and the dialogue is sometimes so poor it's funny) but there are enough redeeming features to make it watchable to the end.  But what are they? Well, it's got a cool little plot - by no means is it original, but it is better presented than other films of its kind. The three main stars (Whalin, Johnson, Long) put in fairly decent performances that more than make up for the distinct lack of quality from the supporting cast (the fat cop and Coach Quinn really bugged me), and the scripting is slick and witty (even if it is poor in places).  The bottom line is, though, this film is so CUTE: I grinned all the way through it and it has a place in my video collection purely because it could cheer up anybody. You really have to be some kind of humourless bore not to like this (I DARE somebody to sit through this without grinning!!!).  I do recommend this one if you want a simple, fun, and - above all - enjoyable watch. You won't regret it!  ~Top$~",1
"Could this be one of the earliest colour films? It's actually the second. This is a very beautiful piece of film produced by Thomas Edison. This was one of many of his other films.  I think this is the most beautiful of any Thomas Edison films. It shows a girl dancing and moving her dress all around, which turns red with the film. It's just beautiful.  You are watching history when you watch this. You are watching what began to make movies of the day great! This may not have a plot, or anything very interesting, but this is the second colour film ever.  I recommend this to everyone, especially if you're teaching students about filming or something of the sort, you have to show them what began color films!",1
"I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.",0
"In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.  Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a ""midquel"", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.  The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a ""second home country"", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.  Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: ""The Beatles are much better than us!""), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).  Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid.",1
"I would probably say this was on a par with films like ""Devil's Rain"" and that sort of film, although this is probably a bit better made. I love 70's horror and this has most of the elements that make up other movies I like so it was pretty easy to enjoy. A family on their vacation stumble across a small town where the people seem to be gripped by some sort of hysteria. Seems like the children have been disappearing. After an initial attempt to flee this place, the family is somehow stopped on the edge of town and find their way back, but not without first finding a house where the kids are gone and mommy and daddy are dead. Seems like we have a different kind of twist on a senior citizen community center in this town, they're all Satan worshipers and they need the kids to renew their lives so they can continue on in their service, I guess. Not that anyone seems too keen on giving up their kids for this enterprise. This is fairly classy considering that it's scary and creepy without buckets of gore or the loud startling events that try to make people jump in films today, which seem to have replaced actual scares. We have Hank Kimball (Alvy Moore) from ""Green Acres"" as Tobey, a sheriff's deputy that reads UFO magazines, and LQ Jones as the sheriff, and a very familiar character actor as the dad of the stranded family. And Strother Martin plays the doctor who seems to be doing double duty unbeknown to his fellow townsfolk. This is pretty good stuff but a tad on the confusing side sometimes, but overall works pretty well & is recommended for fans of 70's horror. 8 out of 10.",1
"It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)  Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.  The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.   ""Fat Man and Little Boy"" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.",0
"The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to see recent films, such as ""Oceans Eleven (remake)"", reviewed in such high regard-especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is.  Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer.",1
"Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to ""get revenge"" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame (""it's OK son, crying helps,"" he says to his son. Son says ""no it doesn't"" and father says ""You're right..it doesn't."")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.",0
"Hilarious, Sellers at his funniest ... a shame you can't get this on video, or even see it on TV anymore ... I'd love to get a good copy somewhere. Maybe it's tied up in court on some legal issue, but a truly riotous hospital farce with Sellers as crooked administrator.",1
"This movie shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch ""Savior"", and you will see that nobody is ""bad""- and nobody is ""good"" in this land of tears and sorrows...",0
"This is a great, dark, offbeat little film, a modern day adaptation of the quest for the Holy Grail myth. It's a sleeper if there ever was one. I saw it on cable some years ago and taped it. I've loaned it to many of my friends and everyone loved it.",1
"How dare you? Adam Low, without apparent shame, puts his name to this fake tribute. It's not even a serious study or analysis or commentary of the great Visconti's work. Yes it's long and portentous, yes we do have some wonderful clips from the films that, most people interested on the subject, have already seen. But what resounds the longest leaving the most lasting impression is the gossip. The last and loudest voice comes from a third rate German actor, ranting and raving. The appropriately named Mr.Low directed this, hoping, I imagine, to get better ratings than his previous, more to the point, but deadly boring documentary on Kurosawa. Well I have news for you Mr Low and your cohorts. You missed a great opportunity and I for one, won't give you another.",0
"""There are some things you just don't do"" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself – if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.  My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled ""My Boss' Daugther"", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.  The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.  It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.  The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp?",0
"What annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.  Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.  This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.  All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.  This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION.   If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.",0
"It doesn't surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn't find a UK distributor, and then had to release it as a free DVD with a Sunday newspaper. The distributors could clearly see what the film-makers and the Sunday newspaper couldn't, that this was one movie that just wasn't going to recoup its costs.  Since it's a thriller about riddles, it would have helped if they'd picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly, rather than the mumbling Vinnie Jones who appears to pronounce ""riddle"" as ""riell"". And it would have helped if the dialogue hadn't been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. The plot is ludicrous: The lost Charles Dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders, but so would a copy of Herge's Adventures Of Tintin, since the link between Dickens and Jones is more non-existent than tenuous. And we have the ridiculous premise that a would-be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered Dickens manuscript, would take several days to read it, just so that flashbacks to Dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie, as if they had some connection to it. Which they don't. I mean, if you found a new Dickens manuscript, wouldn't you just go somewhere quiet and read it ? The film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since The Sixth Sense, but in this case it doesn't so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. If the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour, then revealing that Vinnie Jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. It might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish, but it isn't. And in several places it appears decidedly amateur: There's a scene where a table is laid with a 60's jump-cut technique, but they haven't made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. Consequently, you can see things changing at the edge of frame, when you're really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. A good rule in movie-making is: If you don't understand how to do a technique then try something else.  The real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place.",0
"As a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.  When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.  Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of ""Marty,"" as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.  While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.",0
"This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.  As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good ""so bad that it's fun"" flick.  By the way, there's no such thing as ""La Castagne"". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as ""La Castagne"". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))",0
this movies is really special ! it's about a young french who go in Barcelona (spain) in order to study and in barcleona he meets other youngs europeean like him. This film he's the EUROPEAN MOVIES of the YEAR so go watch it !,1
"The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.",0
"I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella.   For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning.   I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.  And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).",1
"Flowers! If it's one thing you'll take away from this movie, it's gonna be the flowers. They feature so prominently and are used as plot devices, you'll become an expert in identifying with daisies and black tulips by the time the movie ends.  Set in Amsterdam, Daisy tells the frustrating love triangle story between 1 girl and the 2 men in her life. One a professional hit-man eking out a living, the other an Interpol agent. Featuring a Pan-Asian cast (Korean, Hong Kong) and crew (director Andrew Lau from Hong Kong, writer from Korea, and a Thai post production team), I could imagine the headaches in coordination.  Park Yi (Jung Woo-sung) is a hit-man who found a soft spot for painter Hye-young (played by the pretty Jeon Ji-hyun). It's love at first sight in the meadows of daisies, where her clumsiness caught his attention. However, being shy and ever mindful of the dangers of his professional career, he can only admire her from afar, do little (or perhaps big) things for her in an anonymous fashion, but the one that takes the cake is sending her potted daisies everyday without fail at 4:15pm. He becomes her guardian angel from afar, shielding her and keeping her safe from harm.  Hye-young is in love with this mysterious stranger. She is constantly waiting for him to appear, but I really wonder how difficult could that be given the almost punctual daisy delivery. Nonetheless, she's terribly moved, and touched by this sole act. However, as the stars would have it, interpol detective Jeong Woo (Lee Sung-jae) chances upon Hye-young at a town square during one of his undercover missions, and he too is captivated by her. In a similar fashion, because of his profession, he is doubtful if he should make the first move.  Which is where the audience would find it frustrating. The lady obviously would fall for the wrong guy (then again, it's the ""good"" guy), Park Yi being infuriated by Jeong Woo's pursuit, but yet still refuses to step out and identify himself, and Jeong Woo being the opportunist in grabbing the free anonymous identity unwittingly. It's almost as if you wanna give everyone a slap to wake them all up.  That aside, it is precisely this tension that keeps you intrigued. And it is wickedly fun to watch the two male leads finding it tough to fall in love without jeopardizing their careers, or their loved one. But fret not action fans, there are enough cat-and-mouse revelations and unsaid camaraderie in the mould of Infernal Affairs, as well as ample gunfights, although I felt the ending could have been scripted tighter.  What rocks is the clever editing. Telling the story in a non-linear timeline (no worries, it ain't that bad, you'll still be able to follow the narrative) from the points of view of all the leads, keeping you in suspense, and culminating in a three way split screen showcasing all their emotions in a single converging event, which I thought was extremely well-done.  It's a beautiful film in terms of landscapes of lush meadows and busy city squares, with plenty of classical music to sooth the soul. As with romance movies, all the leads are eye candy - the girls will have a field day with the two handsome male leads, while the guys have to make do with a somewhat pudgy-faced (argh! OK lah, at certain angles) Jeon Ji-hyun.  If you're into a romance movie with an equal balance in the action/tension department, then Daisy would be your choice. If you prefer a more conventional weepy, then the other Korean movie making its debut here at the same time, You are My Sunshine, would be your alternative. And yes, I totally dig the ending scene, which I thought only the Koreans do it best? Kinda reminded me of the JSA one.",1
"To sum this story up in a few sentences: A teenage girl (Amy) uses her hot body and ""supposed"" virginity to entice a young troubled guy (Matt) with a potential football scholarship to provide her a ""Full Ride"" out of town. Come to find out she has quite the reputation & has slept with many football players in the past hoping they would offer her the same deal. Both of these kids have come from troubled & dysfunctional homes. Matt's mothers a alcoholic who repeatedly embarrasses him in front of his friends & Amy's mother had a bad reputation herself & got pregnant with Amy at a a young age. Matt falls in love with Amy & tries to straighten out his life for her. Very predictable ending. The actress that plays ""Amy"" is actually 33 years old trying to play a teenager!",1
"This is probably the second best of the Death Wish movies. Death Wish 5 is the best one.  Death Wish 3 reminds me of ""West Side Story"" with a new twist. Not even the recent flick ""Gangs of New York"" can measure up with one New York neighborhood in Death Wish 3 which is plagued not by two rival gangs---but one big gang. A gang that is willing to do things like cutting a person to death with an ax if he trespasses on its set.  Deborah Raffin, who plays a public defender, plays gently in this action-packed movie that is filled with a lot of shoot-em-up violence. So, like Geri Nichols in Death Wish II, Death Wish III scores with its gentle, romantic moments as well as its violent moments. Only the James Bond love-interest scenes would do much better.  And, in addition to his .38, Kersee plays with this new gun called the Wildey .475 Magnum. It reminded me of the Dirty Harry movies when Callahan used his .44 Magnum in Magnum Force, Sudden Impact and Dirty Harry. The Wildey gun packs a big punch and when Kersey kills with it, he doesn't care if the gun has a big kick in it.  And that antitank missile that killed off the main gang leader? Well, that is something. Kersey would not use an antitank missile as his regular vigilante weapon....that is way too military for him.",1
"Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with.   SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why ""assault"" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR.   What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to ""leave before the fire department shows up""?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of ""Bishop's men"" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow.   The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.",0
"In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. ""Do we get to win this time"" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall ""we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home"" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie...",1
"The show is GREAT. No words to describe it. Wonderful music. Incredible dance. The editors couldn't spoil it, not because they were not *that*bad*, but because the show is really *that*good*.  The editors are compulsive cutters, you can't see a scene without a cut for more than 15 secs. It's OK to show various angles, but those guys were working with multiple cameras for the first time in their lives, and they will remind you of how many cameras they have every five seconds on average... They manage to film the start of a jump with one camera, then cut it in the middle, and show the rest of it in another angle.  No matter how much they tried, they couldn't spoil that wonderful show. It's a must for dance and music lovers.",1
"This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.  Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.  The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.",0
"I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.",0
"This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her previous novels/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal...  A MUST SEE!",1
"The C class cast and poorly transitioned scenes, complete with terrible acting have led me too believe this would make a good TV only release such as the FX presentation of a smallpox outbreak. At my local blockbuster however, about 9 copies are held on the shelves, none of which were checked out when I rented the title (I wonder why....) Anyway, this title was almost ridiculous in the ""fear factor"" the director was going for. The whole ""death count"" on the bottom of the screen completely contradicted the plot at times, such as when the chopper was going over Angola, and the toll was speeding at a breakneck pace from 23 million to 24. However, as the movie ends, (possibly several hours or even a day or so after the chopper has landed) the death toll counter is reset back too what it was at the moment the chopper was approaching the area. The movies end left a huge whole in th entire plot, and god knows nobody is waiting for the sequel. Anyway, do not rent this, I only advise watching this if you have obtained the title with no monetary loss, and you are in the mood for a cheesy suspense movie.",0
"This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring.",1
"I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an ""arty"" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like ""Did I have a mother or father, I don't know"" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.  If you are curious about the transition of ""art"" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)",0
"I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another ""Biblical"" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.",0
"Leslie Nielsen hits rock bottom with this absolutely horrible comedy that is the worst mainstream film that I have ever seen. There is nothing to like about this film, as it is essentially a one-joke film, and the joke isn't all that funny. How many times are we supposed to laugh at an almost blind man making a fool out of himself? That's not funny, that's just pitiful. Nielsen seriously needs to start refusing some of these pathetic scripts, and Stanley Tong needs to stick to making Jackie Chan films, because it doesn't get much worse than this.",0
"I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature – the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!  Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout – with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).  The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people – including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) – similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)…not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched – CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature – STAGE FRIGHT (1987) – and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...",0
"The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.  Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).",0
"planktonrules comments must've been written on Topsy-Turvy Day, because everything stated by that simple life form is the opposite of real truth!  'Bluebeard's Eighth Wife' is hilarious in every scene, in every way -- the chemistry between Colbert and Cooper could not have been finer...supporting cast is superb.  Writing and direction are magnificent!!!  Like so many other comments on this board again I lament, ""Why can't films be like this anymore?""   This is classic Paramount 1930's screwball comedy at its best, folks!",1
"I thought this movie was fun. I have never really watched old movies before and this one was a really great first date film. It had warmth and heart and spirit. Was kind of cheesy but in today's film industry, cheesy is cute. I gave it a ten and I highly suggest renting, buying or seeing the movie anyway you can. Gene Kelly was very dreamy and a little bit sarcastic and you knew the character thought that he was gonna have it all. The female lead was cast perfect because their two personalities had spark and you wanted to hold on and see what would happen. The grandma in the movie was priceless. The perfect addition to a great old movie. I love the fact it was black and white and Gene Kelly is so sweet with all the kids in the movie that you can't help liking him. See It.",1
"Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how?   It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well.   Why is this still a favorite of mine?  Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series.   Enjoy!",1
"I saw this on a screener DVD a couple months before it was released.  I liked the main characters and the overall story but some scenes are pretty sloppy and confusing. The sets were fitting but a few just looked like left overs from Freaks & Geeks or reminded me of a cell phone commercial shot in a middle class home. Definitely not what the DVD cover claims, ""Destined to be the next stoner classic"", hardly.  Wardrobe and hairstyles are done well and yes, there are some really pretty girls in this, always nice to see a good looking cast.  Almost every scene contained guitar that just droned on and on. Sound design was a bit poor. I think less would have been best.",0
"While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.  What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out ""see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance"". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen!   Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.",0
"Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.  The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.  Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..",0
"In fact, the nature of the whole series is irrepressibly funny! But not always funny... there are moments of extreme poignance as the deeper aspects of human emotion are touched on.   Over and again, the series comments on the frailties of human nature and the life long, or in this case eternal, struggle to overcome them. Monkey is both smart and stupid at the same time, his arrogance and reliance on his own martial skills lead him into trouble in almost every episode. Pigsy is just plain gross. Sandy has a philosophical turn of mind. He has many of the wittiest lines.   The English translation is a delight. ""Ignorance can always be improved upon,"" drawls Sandy in his laid-back manner, ""but you can't do anything to help stupidity!"" ""Who are you?"" the group of travellers are asked. ""We three kings of Orient are,"" says Monkey.   This is not just for children, it is a magical romp for anyone who can suspend reality",1
"Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon?   First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say ""important things"" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.  Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.  Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.  So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.  If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.",0
"I saw this because my cousin is an extra in one of the wedding scenes. I read somewhere that Oz and Rudnick wanted to poke fun at liberal message movies, but the climax ends up being right out of one of those movies. Also, some of the humor is a bit on the cloying side, Joan Cusack was too over-the-top for me, and someone has a strange timeline re the Oscars. Still, there were more than enough funny moments, like the kiss scene, the wedding that isn't, and the scene with the principal, to enjoy this. Kline as always is good, but for me, the real surprise was Selleck, whom I'm not a big fan of, but pokes fun at himself nicely here.",1
"Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.  In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.  First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.  Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.  How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.",1
"Hartley on low-key form: Martin Donovan, born to play Jesus, comes as Messiah to millenial Manhatten; P.J. Harvey is excellent as sidekick Magdelena. A slight film, but drily amusing, short and sweet.",1
"So I guess that Bud and Lou just liked to mess with classic stories (although they did have some interesting results). In this case, they're baby-sitting a bad boy, and Lou tries to read him ""Jack and the Beanstalk"" but falls asleep and dreams that he's Jack and Bud's the butcher, and they climb the beanstalk to rescue the prince and princess from the giant (Buddy Baer).  I think that my favorite scene was when Lou was trying to make the giant an omelet, and...well, I'll let you see what happens. As this was an Abbott and Costello movie, they did have a few unnecessary songs, but other than that, it was pretty funny. For other interpretations of the classic story, ""Bewitched"" and ""Gilligan's Island"" both had episodes portraying it.",1
"Nice doco Stuie!   Even though it didn't work out how you wanted with the original film you have a fantastic piece of work and great viewing.  It is self evident how much you put into it.  That goes for everyone else too. It's great to see the warts and all account of the process without being 'too nice'.  Loved it! Well worth a view.  Que pena, the writer of 'the original' film couldn't appreciate what you have achieved.  Love the attitude too. Great piece. Looking forward to seeing the next work.  Keep going bro! Paully",1
"The One and the Only!  The only really good description of the punk movement in the LA in the early 80's. Also, the definitive documentary about legendary bands like the Black Flag and the X. Mainstream Americans' repugnant views about this film are absolutely hilarious! How can music be SO diversive in a country of supposed liberty...even 20 years after...find out!",1
"Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy.   Mild mannered employee Leon ""Foggy"" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more.   Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.",0
"Spoilers. This review has been edited due to word limit.  `The horror. The horror.' Marlon Brando, Apocalypse Now (1979) and Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)  The sentence which is as famous as `Here's looking at you, kid,' or `Are you talkin' to me?' or `May the Force be with you,' or `I'll be back,' means a little more than some one-liners. When it is spoken it lingers in the air with an importance and meaning that does not go unnoticed. What might drive some viewers nuts is that they may never find an answer to the horror unless they re-watch the film and try to pay close observation to every single frame.  What, exactly, does this line of dialogue mean? The horror spoken of is the reality of war. The reality of moral men being so easily corrupted that they turn on their inborn instincts and kill fellow beings without any sign of guilt. When Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) stands before the dying Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) at the end of the film, `The horror.the horror.' is the realization of Willard's corruptness. He has mercilessly killed a man in cold blood as part of his assignment. This isn't a typical Hollywood ending. In most cases a character gains something, whether it be emotionally, physically, mentally or all three. But Willard both gains and loses. He gains the knowledge that he has lost his morals. And that is a shocking ending.  `Apocalypse Now' is Francis Ford Coppola's tribute to the artistic side of filmmaking. This film is wholly different from `The Godfather.' It is hallucinogenic, visually dazzling, and an ode to the guilty side of human nature. At first it seems realistic, and then it becomes strange, and then symbolic, and, by the end, original in its own unique perspective of the spiritual side of warfare. This is not as much a film about the Vietnam War as it is a film about the war within us.  At first it does appear to be another war film. Captain Willard (Sheen) is assigned by an Army Lieutenant (a young Harrison Ford) to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Brando), who is hiding out somewhere in Vietnam with a hoard of troops who more or less act as his slaves.  Willard carries out his mission `with extreme prejudice,' heading out on a boat along with four soldiers, including the boat captain, Chief (Albert Hall), Chef (Frederic Forest), and a very young `Larry' Fishburne (who later went on to appear as Morpheus in `The Matrix').  ""Apocalypse Now"" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey. As our main character, Willard, carries on his journey, he meets an array of original and strange characters, including Lt. Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who has a strange fetish for surfing, and a stoned photographer (Dennis Hopper), whose lively gestures and mannerisms can be compared to those of the very much lesser Jeremy Davies in ""The Million Dollar Hotel,"" one of the worst films I have ever seen. Davies failed to make any connection with an audience; Hopper does. He is like the poetic vibe between Willard and Kurtz; he is like an interpreter going back and forth and speaking in foreign languages. In this case, he is translating Kurtz to Willard, although I'm not so sure Kurtz needs a translation of Willard.  Many films are lucky enough to have one or two memorable scenes or lines. ""Apocalypse Now"" has many. Kilgore descending upon a Vietnam village playing Wagner's ""Ride of the Valkyries"" remains one of the most remembered scenes in all of film history. There is sharpness to it, a brutality to it, an ironic tone to it, and also a sense of playfulness. When Kilgore kneels down on that beach and says, `I love the smell of napalm in the morning.it smells like victory,' we all crack a smile.  I won't lie to you: `Apocalypse Now' is a strange film. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to analyze. The end may frustrate some viewers if they don't understand Marlon Brando's significant speeches. But what it all comes down to, what really matters, is that this film is about the dark nature of the human psyche. The horror is the realization of war and its effects, not the war itself. Kurtz says, `You have a right to kill me. But you have no right to judge me.' Brando's character, Kurtz, is left to the audience to judge. To many naïve viewers he may appear as a crazy loon whose power got to his head. But that isn't what Francis Ford Coppola is trying to get across. By fighting in Vietnam, Kurtz has realized just how great he had it, and how bad some others had it. By walking through devastated villages he eventually comes to realize that we are the naïve ones, living our lives in a fool's paradise. We are totally naïve to our surroundings and possible misfortunes until they hit. By seeing how unlucky some Vietnamese are, Kurtz realizes just how easily he could be struck by something. Just how easily he could end up like the people around him. And he also realizes that the people who did this are people who have abandoned their morals and left them at the door. Many people think the horror is one thing. It is two. For Kurtz, the horror is the reality of how naïve he was and the reality of the war's impact upon men. And after Willard murders Kurtz, and hears Kurtz's dying words, he realizes it too. He realizes the effects of war. To see so many soldiers with no sense of right or wrong makes him realize the horror of what war can do to a man. And what it has done to him. The horror.  5/5 stars -",1
"No doubt about it. This is the animated short that put Uncle Walt on the map of success. When Walt's older brother,Roy suggested that the next Mickey Mouse short should include sound, Walt jumped at the chance. The result:Steamboat Willie was a runaway hit for 1928. It was, after all, the first animated short subject with a synchronized sound track (mostly music & sound effects,as dialog was minimal). Not to sound like a wet blanket, but the short is far from perfect. Animation prior to 1935 was creaky & rather herky jerky (but once equipment made improvements,and better artistic techniques came about,the rest was smooth sailing),and the sound was primitive (Disney wanted to use the then well known RCA Sound System,or the Western Electric Noiseless sound system,but was refused by both firms,prompting Disney to use the Photophone system that P.A. Powers was experimenting with at the time). The plot (there's an actual plot line here?)concerns Mickey (as the aforementioned Willie)is the pilot of a steamboat, that is terrorized by Black Pete (Captain Pete to you),and decides to have a jam session on ship, using the various animals on board as musical instruments (ASPCA, take notice). If you don't think too much about the technical shortcomings, Steamboat Willie can be eight minutes of fun (and a piece of history).",1
"Not only Why? But ""What were they thinking?"" This must have been some  sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies  that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film  frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film  making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.",0
"I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.",1
"If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.  The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.  The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of ""investment"" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.  This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.  I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.",0
"This film is about a deadly poison that is contained in small glass globes that is used to kill. This is apparently done to hide an espionage ring intent on stealing plans for a new American bomber. Now much of this plot was repeated in other Chan films, THE JADE MASK and THE DOCKS OF NEW ORLEANS. Additionally, it was first used in MR. WONG, DETECTIVE--all had the exploding glass globes--a plot element that obviously has been overused. It was interesting in MURDER OVER NEW YORK, but by these later films it was rather passé.  Fortunately, the rest of the film was fresh and the plot worked out very well--with a nifty conclusion where, of course, the culprit reveals himself. However, no plane could fly the way this one did--especially in 1940. Such extreme dives and rapid ascents were pretty silly out of this already obsolete plane.  By the way, in a small role as a porter you'll see Frank Coghlan Jr.--the same actor who played Billy Batson in the CAPTAIN MARVEL serial. According to IMDb, Mr. Coughlan is 93 years old and retired from the film industry.",1
"From the opening drum hit of ""We're Gonna Groove"" to the last guitar hit of ""Whole Lotta Love"", this two-DVD set might be one of the best music DVD's ever to hit the shelves since the Beatles Anthology was finally released earlier this year.  One of the best things about this DVD is that on Disc 1, a whole concert and many television appearances can be found. For instance, the whole Royal Albert Hall concert is on the DVD, as well as some of the best performances from the band's last concert at Knebworth.  In the Royal Albert Hall concert, for instance, the band had a lot of room to improvise. Jimmy Page's guitar solos make ""Dazed And Confused"" a huge rock power ballad as opposed to the laid-back blues song it was on Led Zeppelin I.   Next, on DVD 2, is a promotional video for the Led Zeppelin III hit song ""Immigrant Song"". One of Zeppelin's hardest rocking songs, the video is about as sketchy as a Pre-MTV video was, but it displays a lot of guitar power by Jimmy Page, as it was taken from a live performance. After the video ends, we are treated, in transition, with a short picture of fans filling the seats at Madison Square Garden. The following are performances that were supposed to be part of ""The Song Remains The Same"", but did not make the cut. Excellent riffs like those in the songs ""Black Dog"" and ""The Ocean"" were both present.  After the Madison Performances, we are treated with Earl's Court. Most of the Led Zeppelin IV material was played here, like the most popular song that Zeppelin ever recorded, ""Stairway to Heaven"". It is brilliant as always, even more so than the version on IV.  Finally, to end the 5+ hours of live material, is Led Zeppelin's final concert in Knebworth in August of 1979. As the viewer watches this, they have to admit that Robert Plant's voice is getting throatier and deeper from all of the screaming he has done in the past, and it is evident here. On songs like ""Kashmir"" and ""In The Evening"", Plant does not have his vocal boost of old, yet, on ""Whole Lotta Love"", it returns for one more song.  Overall, one of the best musical DVD's ever released, only next to the great ""Beatles Anthology"" boxed set that was released earlier in 2003. The sound, both in 5.1 DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital, just like the Beatles DVD, gives you a feeling of being on-stage with the performers, standing right next to them, as you would feel on the Beatles DVD when they are jamming in the studio. Even though The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are different bands, though, they each received different DVD's. Even though this set comes on only two discs compared to the five disc Beatles Set, it still feels very filling to the viewer after they have gone through all of that content. It is also a pleasure to watch again and again, not only because of the sound quality, but because of the sheer energy on stage when Robert Plant begins to sing.  A brilliant effort from Atlantic.",1
"The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.",0
"Comedy is a hard beast to conquer. Ishimoto fails on all accounts, as a writer and director. Some things, like making movies that are funny, just need to be left to the professionals. 1 out of 10. Awful. It wasn't funny. I tried to laugh but it just wasn't funny. I wasn't the only one, no-one else at the Chicago festival was laughing either, at least at the showing I saw. Simply very bad, sorry :(",0
"Excuse me if I'm wrong, but ""Cronica para un desayuno"" could be one of the most gretatest films in tne mexican movie history for a lot of reasons. We can get a lot of ingredients for a perfect mexican middle-class family breakfast: a cup of Buñuel's surrealistic motifs with a little drop of Ripstenian desolated scenarios; a pound of phallus symbols around the film and a difficult psychological complexity, more than Todd Solondz's Happiness and the Dogma movement films. There`s a lot of sordidness, black humor, repressed dreams (Teodoro's dream of fly), incestual lack of control (the relation between Marcos and Luzma), no-sense parallel stories, a discrete violence, anachronisms and  a little sign of hope (spotlighted in Luzma, the husband's home return and ""Un poco Mas"" used for leit-motif). Marcos (Bruno Bichir) is a charming character ( I think in a Bukoskian way), the king-without a-crown who don't expects for anything, but broken noses. Luzma (Maria Rojo) , the lovable wife , put out a lot of faces, but the only thing that she worried is that her sons had breakfast; she' s a loser in many ways and sensual in few moments , but you will fall in love of her. The soundtrack's drag (too much woods) feeds the lack of technical merits, intentional , of course: out-of-focus shots, overlighted close-ups (in introspective scenes), dizzy pans and sudden edition cuts. ""Crónica"" is something difficult to digest, it get stuck in the throat and anything helps for it. It tastes bitter, like a rotten orange juice and sour like expired milk, but you want to enjoy it. So I recommend to get some Melox before the show, because you won't get hungry after all.",1
"It's as if the Stay-Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters had been reincarnated in Rutger Hauer's body and is taking revenge upon a rival's pregnant wife! If seeing an obese Hauer chase a very pregnant Isabel Glaser (imagine the spine-tingling thrills in that contest) sounds good to you, see this film! Seriously, if Hauer is what an Iraqi POW looks like after six years in prison, then hungry people everywhere should make a bee line to a jail in Baghdad. Overall ""Tactical Assault"" rates 2 stars instead of 1 because Mike Mitchell as Hawk is terrific. Mitchell burns up the screen as a NATO pilot until his plane is burned up itself (by an enemy missle), whereupon the film loses what little verve it had to begin with.",0
"What crack are you smoking? This movie, while gloriously entertaining, is awful!   The action scenes are so obviously fake it's kind of sad. The colonel's daughter is painfully irritating. The ninja training camp is so hilarious it is almost not worth mentioning. And when Joe puts the bucket over his head and beat up the other army guy, I just about peed myself. I could go on...  Entertaining, arguably so. Good, no. Well made, certainly not.  As a commentary on America as empire, it's actually pretty good. Joe as a typical white conqueror isn't all that surprising, especially in the context of mid-1980s American cinema.",0
"This seventh (yes you read right - the seventh) Puppet Master movie shows how the demented group of dolls came to be; by a french puppeteer who uses them to get revenge on a group of ancient mummies who are after him once they learn that he holds the secret to life. It was taught to him by a sorcerer, also on the run, before he died. He used this power to bring normal puppets to life. This sequel is basically nonsense, sprinkled upon even more nonsense like most of the Puppet Master sequels. Due to the PG13 rating, we don't even get any entertaining puppet murders. Come to think of it, there are NO damn puppet murders. If there was one franchise that needed to be cut off it would be this one. No more....god, please no more...",0
"I watch a lot of movies - DVD, features, and classics, you name it. The night I watched JERICHO MILE, my wife (who had ordered it on the internet) said she remembered it from when she was in high school, that it had stayed with her all of these years. Somewhat reluctantly I sat down (with our daughter & son), and was riveted from the opening sequence to the end titles. We all were.   She, who remembered the original, and our kids (18 and 16) who had no idea what the movie was about couldn't believe it. Our favorite scene? Bar none, when peter Strauss so passionately bangs his fist down and says, ""i'd do it AGAIN!"". It didn't advocate violence because it was a defense crime, but evoked such intensity we couldn't believe it...when his fellow cell mates gave him their food in support of his efforts, there wasn't a dry eye in our house.  Someone please make more movies like this one. UNBELIEVABLE!!",1
"As over the past ten years or even longer the whole world is flooded with so-called sitcoms (actually only very few deserve this title 'cause they're so predictable), King of Queens is a very original, unique and astoundingly funny alternation. It's about the daily life of a deliveryman and his wife who works as an attorney's assistant in Manhattan in Queens, NY. With them lives Carrie's father Arthur, a picture-book extrovert, who is played by the fantastic Jerry Stiller and who steals the show from all the others every time he appears. Other important people are their best friends Deacon and Kelly, a married couple, and their other friend Spence who's almost 30 and still lives with his mother. What makes this show so unique and funny is, above all, that every single character seems so real and Carrie's cynical, sarcastic attitude is the total opposite of Doug's good-natured, slightly dumb optimism.And Arthur's the one who makes it absolutely unpredictable with his strange ideas and habits. He often gets himself into trouble and Doug and Carrie have to drag him out of the mud. Even if in my opinion the quality of the show decreased a little within the last years it's still one of the best daily sitcoms ever made. It takes a little time to get into the characters and relate to them, but after that's done, you get some unstoppable laughs from it. Although I think I couldn't survive one day with Arthur in a closed room without beating the guts out of him, I really adore him in this show. Watch and have fun, I give it a 9 out of 10.",1
"The plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.  FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.",0
"** HERE BE SPOILERS **   Recap: Macleane (Miller) witnesses a robbery by Plunkett (Carlyle) that goes wrong. Plunkett's partner get shot (and killed) but not until after he has swallowed a great ruby. Plunkett and Macleane then meet at the cemetery when both try to get hold of the ruby. Unfortunately they are caught as grave robbers and sent to jail, but not until Plunkett has swallowed the ruby. The ruby is their key to freedom, and once they're free, they form a partnership in robbery. Macleane is to pose as a gentleman and find out who is worth robbing, and then simply they rob him (and rob them in style). But Macleane falls in love with the niece/daughter (?) of their first victim, lady Rebecca Gibson (Tyler). And a Mr Chance (Stott) is out to catch them, and his methods are not very nice...  Comments: A good action flavoured by comedy and adventure. Carlyle and Miller form a good team, with a lot of friction and friendship. And then there is the relationship between Macleane and Rebecca Gibson. The scene with the ball is very good, especially the (anachronistic) use of the music. In addition to these interesting characters Cumming play the best of them all, Lord Rochester. Both the character and the acting are stellar and among the best in the movie. In total, the movie works very well, a nice balance between story and special effects, action and comedy. Very entertaining.  8/10",1
"When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, ""Have you checked the girl?"" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when ""he"" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.  Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clichéd, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.  Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clichéd, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy ""teenage"" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore/borefest.  I guess this falls into the ""Oh well, whatever"" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.  If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever.",0
"I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.   One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.   There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.",0
"Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? Um…yeah…Pronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge… err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie ""Dial: Help"" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but ""Dial: Help"" revolves on … err… never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure… Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope… It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm… I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but … But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted ""Dial: Help"" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent ""Dial: Help"" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?",0
"I have NEVER EVER seen such a bad movie before. The scene where they shoot some guy.. The pistol don`t even shoot. Damn that is baad. The scene with the boy is even not that good. no script, not any good sound, not anything good to say about this movie..",0
"A fantastic cinema experience. I really enjoyed seeing this truly magnificent film in the theater when it came out. There is nothing to add, except that is a terrible shame that sir Albert Finney still isn't accepted by the AMPAS (American Academy). After roles in such films as Tom Jones, Murder on the Orient Express, Under the Volcano (to name only few - for these he was nominated for the Oscar), The Dresser is arguably his highlight, yet...  I know, Oscars are just popularity contest, but if Americans like British actors and actresses (""and the Oscar goes to"" Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Glenda Jackson etc. - and they all deserved the award!), why they always left sir Finney with empty hands?  On the other hand, they gave it to John Wayne and Marisa Tomei (in Cousin Vinny). I don't know, should I laugh or cry.  If you have seen the two leads in The Dresser, you won't forget what is the art of acting. Watch this film and enjoy! I recommend it to everyone who loves art.  I give 9/10 for this excellent film (1 point missing for non-cinematic material, after all it is ""just"" a theater)  Note: My criteria is much stronger than this on IMDb (10 only for the cinematic masterpiece that should/could last forever).",1
"""Death Machines"" takes a fairly decent premise for an action movie (unstoppable martial arts killing machines sent out to eliminate a crime boss' opponents) and turns it into an unwatchable mess. I have rarely seen such a breath taking combination of tiny budget, bad acting and incoherent script released as a so-called ""movie"". It's easily the worst martial-arts/action oriented movie I've seen in years, eclipsing even ""Ninja Holocaust"" (which at least had some good energetic fight scenes).   The actual ""star"" of the movie is the white ""Death Machine"", (it's basically his vehicle) so he is featured prominently in many more scenes than his two cohorts. He's in good shape, and he's not bad looking, but as an actor he's barely there - think Chuck Norris in ""The Octagon"",only without any energy or emotion.This is obviously a deliberate choice on the part of the actor and director...but you have to be Arnold to pull this kind of thing off, and this guy is no Arnold.  The movie (and the director) can't seem to find the time (or the budget) to film the scenes that would have answered the basic questions that it originally posed, like: Who was the shadowy figure giving the marbled-mouthed Asian lady her orders? How did the ""gang war"" end? Why did the mush-mouthed Asian lady decide to have her zombie assassins killed? And what the heck happened that left her assistant dead and her wielding a katana like a broom stick?   It does, however, find the time to film a completely extraneous bar fight in which a sailor (well, he looked like Popeye) destroys a bar because the juke box didn't work. It's only related to the rest of the film because in the process he also K.O.'s the movie's ""hero"", a bartender/karate student who was a victim of the ""Death Machines"" first major assignment (he got his hand chopped off while they were killing his teacher). It follows this up with one of the most un-called for ""love scenes"" between the hero and his girlfriend I have ever watched. The segue makes no sense - at the end of the bar-fight, she's grimacing over his splayed limp body, and the next thing they are in a ""tasteful"" shadow montage of sex and love that looks like it came from a Hallmark card. BTW, we never see the sailor again.   And wait until you see the showdown between the homicide detective and his captain - it plays as if the director and screenwriter never actually saw a movie scene placed inside a police station, but had heard of them second hand and decided to include some without really knowing how they worked.   The movie is a textbook case of poor casting and community theater-level actors floundering without decent direction. The three ""Death Machines"" come across as clods; the ""hero"" knows his lines but can't carry the movie, given that his character is an ineffective wimp; his girlfriend is a charisma vacuum; and all the other minor parts are barely watchable. All this makes for a fairly poor movie- but the ""dragon lady"" does more to drag the movie into subterranean stinker territory than anyone or anything else. She looks ridiculous; her tiny, inexpressive face is overpowered by her ton-o-hair skyscraper wig, she wears her red silk dress like a bathrobe, and she talks with a terrible mush-mouth delivery that screams ""needed time with a dialog coach"". Poor lady - she was obviously way out of her element, and as far as I know, never appeared in a film again.   Add to this a low-budget one-synthesizer soundtrack that never shuts up and never plays anything appropriate or interesting; crappy film stock and lighting; fight choreography that is strictly from hunger; and a general all around dreariness and lack of energy in the blocking and the stage business...and you have one lame movie.   I got this as part of a 50 movie DVD compilation, so it probably cost me about 50 cents to watch it. It wasn't worth it. Feh!",0
"This thriller has so many twists and turns it had me on the edge of my seat. I saw it on video, some of the landscape at ""the bluff"" might have been a bit more spectacular on the big screen. Cast has Sandra Bullock, Ben Chaplin (from ""The Truth About Cats & Dogs""), Michael Pitt (Henry Parker in ""Dawson's Creek"") and Ryan Gosling (???).",1
"Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military/police/sheriff/agent/marshal figure. The special effects are well, ""special"" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.  Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.  Spoilers...  A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash (""Pull up, pull up!""), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.  The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.",0
"Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.",0
"Pretty funny stuff. Charlie was still working towards his peak when he made this rather daring short about soldiers in the trenches of World War One. Daring because, after all, the war was still going on and this was a comedy about a serious business.  The gags are amusing without being either hilarious or tear jerking. One successful scene follows another, as Chaplin and his comrades try to sleep in a bunker that is knee deep in water. (That's where we got the term ""trench foot"" from.) Probably the most ludicrous episode has Chaplin disguised as a tree and foiling any number of German soldiers as they try to execute an Allied soldier caught behind the lines. Edna Purviance, Chaplin's main squeeze at the time, is a woman who cooperates with the Americans and is saved from execution too.  Chaplin would go on to do funnier and more ambitious things but this is better than most of his shorts during this early period.",1
"An intense, dark action drama with unusually rich support from Casey, Keith, et. al, many of whom get the best roles of their careers and run with it. The film is oddly shaped -- often the action slows down just to let the characters get caught up in odd but well-done seemingly improved dialogues -- during the stakeouts, almost all of the ""Machine"" get caught up in perfectly delivered humorous monologues -- and Reynolds the director deserves mucho credit for having Reynolds the star step back and give them room. And unlike most action films, you really get to like the characters, which makes the 2nd half, when their various destinies good and bad unfold, unusually affecting. The combination of character development, brutal violence, a jazzy soundtrack (Tarantino must be a fan -- watch this & then ""Jackie Brown"" and you'll see what I'm talking about)make this occasionally flawed film (The bad guys are a bit melodramatic) one of the better modern cop films, and in my mind superior to many of the overrated modern noirs such as ""Body Heat"" & such.",1
"Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in ""Dakota Incident"" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.  Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but ""Dakota Incident"" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.",0
"THE LATE SHIFT was an interesting made for HBO movie that took a detailed look at the power struggle that ensued between David Letterman and Jay Leno when Johnny Carson announced his retirement and both wanted to replace him. This struggle is now part of Hollywood folklore, but for those who don't know the story and are aware of where Letterman is now, it might be interesting to learn that David Letterman wanted to replace Johnny Carson as host of THE TONIGHT SHOW more than anything in the world, but Letterman found his dreams being derailed as frequent guest host Leno had one of Hollywood's most powerful agents, Helen Kushnick, in his corner and working tirelessly to get her client the job. It's not often that we get to see behind the scenes Hollywood machinations recreated for entertainment value, but for fans of these two late night superstars, this movie provided a fascinating look at a very turbulent period in late night television. According to this movie, Letterman was practically promised the job by Carson himself while NBC had promised the job to Leno and that's where Helen Kushnick came in. The movie presents Leno as sort of a milquetoast who allowed his career to be manipulated by Kushnick and feigned ignorance to some of Helen's strong-willed manipulations of some of NBC's biggest power players and it presents Letterman as this smart and savvy businessman who, despite having Carson's support, was railroaded by NBC and Kushnick. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck credibly recreate Letterman and Leno, respectively, but it is the razor-sharp performance of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Helen Kushnick that keeps this movie bubbling. Bates commands the screen in one of her best, if not so well-known performances as the venomous Hollywood agent who eats television studio executives for breakfast. There is also a wonderful turn by impressionist Rich Little as Johnny Carson, but it is primarily a fascinating story and the powerhouse performance by Bates that make this one worth checking out.",1
"Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.",0
"Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :)",1
"For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest ""After the Funeral"" for the following reasons.  I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in ""the journey of life."" And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.  Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.  Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore!",1
"I may be a sentimentalist. But i found this movie truly moving. It was the first movie that reduced me to tears. And it did it more than once!! I recommend it to anyone both gay and str8. Religious or not! Supporting co-star Jackie Bisset stole the show, especially with her one liners. The nude scenes were superbly crafted as well, and all in were good taste. Most shocking was the portrayal of the orientation reversal deprogramming instituted by the Mormon church to the lead character. It shocked me that this still goes on in the world. Nevertheless I enjoyed this movie tremendously. This is definitely the best gay film since Torch Song Trilogy. And much better than the other gay movie offering that year - The Fluffer.",1
"If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film ""Nemesis"", then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like ""Nemesis"" its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line.",1
"""Sorte Nula"" is the #1 Box Office Portuguese movie of 2004. This extreme low budget production (estimated USD$150,000) opened during Christmas opposite American Blockbusters like National Treasure, Polar Express, The Incredibles and Alexander but rapidly caught the adulation of the Portuguese moviegoers. Despite the harsh competition, the small film did surprisingly well, topping all other Portuguese films of the past two years in its first weeks. The film is a mystery/murder with a humorous tone cleverly written and directed by Fernando Fragata who has become a solid reference in the European independent film arena. Did I like the film? Oh, yes!",1
"This was an interesting movie. I could have done without the bathroom scene and the seduction scene - EWWWW! Other than that, I loved the head-banging music this movie revolved around. Chris/Izzy's parents are AWESOME! They totally support their sons interests and believe in him enough to support him - now that is AWESOME!! What really surprised me was the Chris's realization at the end. It was not quite the ""hollywood"" ending on his road to self discovery. The overall rise to stardom and the fall of it was quite a roller- coaster ride.",1
"Father Hood is an entertaining tale of an unwilling Father who is definitely a HOOD! Patrick Swayze plays Jack Charles who is a hood always on the look-out for the one big ""score"" that is going to put him on easy street. His wife died while he was is prison and his two kids were put in foster care. When he ""got out"" he thought they were probably better off in foster care – besides he still had to score his fortune. His daughter Kathleen Charles (played wonderfully by Sabrina Lloyd) breaks out of a foster care institution that is abusing the kids and misappropriating money that is suppose to be being spent on the kids. She hunts down her father; tells him about how bad the place was and that her brother, Eddie Charles (played by Brian Bonsall) , ""just a little 7-year-old kid"" was being moved to the institution that she had just broken out of and convinces her father to kidnap him. The three start off on an adventure across country, all the while Jack keeps telling himself that he has to get rid of the kids! Patrick Swayze is really good in this comedy, playing a ""hood"" (probably a little understatement for this criminal character) who is similar to his Johnny Castle character of Dirty Dancing except Jack is appropriately funnier in this comedy and more optimistic than Johnny Castle. Swayze is funny and rally does comedy pretty well! Halle Berry plays Kathleen Mercer who is a reporter trying to get at the truth of the foster care system who becomes Sawyer's ally. Diane Ladd plays Rita the con-artist mother of Jack Charles.",1
"The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.  Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.  Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.  This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.",1
"Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot.",1
"A lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.  I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie.",0
"I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man ""on the edge"". But the scenery! Oh oh oh!",1
"How in the name of decency did this film ever get made?   One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.  Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.  Overall impression?   A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.  This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.  And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.  But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.",0
"*SPOILER ALERT!! PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED!!*  I was originally planning on seeing this movie this past weekend, but my plans ended up making me unable to have time to see it. So me & my friend made plans to see it after school today. Boy, are we glad we did. The movie starts off in Italy, with a planned heist with a group of guys (Charlie Croker [Mark Whalberg], Steve Frezelli [Edward Norton], Lyle, also known as ""Napster"" [Seth Green, you'll get the nickname later], Handsome Rob [Jason Statham], Left Ear [Mos Deaf], & John Bridger [Donald Sutherland]) plan a heist to steal 32 gold bricks. This leads to the whole opening, which is a good 10 to 15 minutes, and involves a boat chase, which opens the movie up right. While driving away in their get away van, Steve Frezelli turns on the group, steals the gold, and kills John Bridger, who is pretty much the (retiring) leader of the group. Fast foward to a year later, where where Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter, is one of the top safe-crackers that anyone can ask for. Charlie Croker (who was actually indirectly responsible for her father's death, as he called him out of retirement for the heist) says that they've found Steve (who has gone into hiding), and want to get back at him for what he did. She at first declines, but later agrees, and the teamgets back together, along with getting the help of Wrench (Franky G), a mechanic, to carry out the perfect heist, while creating one of the largest traffic jams in Los Angeles history. This movie is a perfect mix of action with funny bits thrown in throughout. There's an on-running joke about Seth Green's character, Lyle, creating Napster and how Shawn Fanning (who makes a cameo) stole it while he fell asleep, and eventually Lyle will only answer if refered to as ""Napster"". There's even a funny line in the movie by Seth, who goes ""He said in an interview he called it Napster because it described his hair, like it was nappy. He callled it that because *I* was napping when he stole it!"" The begining and ending sequences are pure genius, and everything in between fits perfectly. The only negative thing I can think of with the movie is that Edward Norton's acting was a bit weak. He wasn't a big, tough bad guy. He acted like he was being paid and just doing the bare-minimum (which is a fact, as he was forced to do this movie due to contractual obligation). But, even with that problem being the only real gripe with the film, the movie is still very enjoyable, and I definetly recommend seeing it. And even if you're not interested in the actual movie, go to see Seth Green shine in the comedic role. He's perfect. Rating: **** out of *****",1
"Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story ""Come Be My Love"", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****",0
"I found the first bit of stop motion animation intriguing and the mostly live action short with the girl going about in whatever country it was kept my interest, but the other 11 odd shorts really didn't pique my interest or make me think of anything at all. The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random. I would not recommend this to any one unless you get to see it free.  As for the music being so in step that didn't come across either. I rented the DVD because I thought it was all stop motion animation or SMA mixed with live action and only the first short was SMA, the second had a little stop motion mixed with mostly live action. There was paper cut-out stuff in one, and the rest was outdoor shots from an 8mm camera with the music bed. Just didn't have any meaning to it I could see.",0
"It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.  It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.  To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.  It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.  The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat ""obvious"", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.  If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.  So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference.",1
"This movie just might make you cooooo. The film was WELL worth the dark trip to town. Betty (Renee Zellweger)is the lone ""acceptable"" soap groupie out there. Her character is SO charming and SO convincing that you find yourself in forgiveness over her being such a goof. I might even allow myself to get lost in Bettys' adorable fantasy, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Ravell's real name is George... And speak of the devil; ""looker"" Greg Kinnear fills his role VERY well. While Charlie (Morgan Freeman) makes you wish for his wish to come true, Wesley (Chris Rock) makes you want to tie him to a chair. And Rosa(Tia Texada)takes you back to those luminous grade-school friendships. The sheriff encourages you to feed him donuts and loose his name. The remainder of the cast fits well. Never one to do the same movie twice, Nurse Betty is the exception. One of these long, cold, needing to smile about something winter days.",1
"This is one of the classic TWILIGHT ZONE episodes, where with the simplest of situations the viewer was drawn into a seemingly symbolic conflict, only to find the solution surprising and strangely acceptable. Five figures are inside a container/prison: a Major, a ballerina, a bagpiper, a clown, and a tramp. They are certainly an odd choice of types to be in this isolation chamber, but they are all in it (nevertheless) and they are trying to figure out why they are there. What have they in common? None can figure it out. But gradually the Major organizes them into working to bet out by standing on each other's shoulders. And the Major, going to the top of the line of figures does reach the entrance, and .... I'll leave it like that, although one of the other critiques on this thread actually gives the story away.  The title seems to be suggested by SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR, Pirandello's famous play. Whether the actual purpose to the show was to spoof that play is questionable: Pirandello's characters analyze their roles and relations with each other. But the five characters here, while they try to understand their situation, are totally in the dark - they are not in the situation of the six characters in Pirandello who know their current situations. This uncertainty of what is going on allows the viewers to think it is an abstract drama.  The actors, William Windon as the Major and Murray Mattheson as the Clown in particular, give good accounts of themselves. And the conclusion, whether planned as a spoof or not, is quite effective.",1
"Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.  None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.  Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.  The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.  My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.  Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest.",1
"A young theater actress reluctantly accepts her first major part in a staged play as Lady Macbeth thanks to the mishap of the production's diva falling in front of a moving car. A success winning her accolades, Betty(Christina Marsillach)finds instead horror as the one responsible for getting her to this point terrorizes her in cruel ways.  First her stage manager boyfriend, Stefano(William McNamara)is viciously stabbed with a knife while she has to watch, rope-tied to a pillar in his uncle's vast mansion, keeping her eyes from closing thanks to needles scotch-taped under her eyes, with pricking a result if she blinks. Allowing her to escape, Betty again finds herself in this unfortunate position, when a specific gold chain is found on her Lady Macbeth wardrobe that had been torn to shreds by the madman after killing a series of crows which escaped from their cage in the equipment room, by the clothing designer who is first knocked to the floor by an iron and subsequently stabbed heinously by a pair of scissors(..to cap off this nasty scene, the chain falls into her throat with the killer having to cut open her throat to find it; while not specifically elaborating this act, Dario uses the ripping sound of the scissors for optimum effect with the camera often retreating back to the victim's dead face). Having nowhere to turn, Inspector Alan Santini(Urbano Barberini, playing him cold and bland at Dario's request)promises to catch the psycho as Betty relies on her few remaining friends for comfort, the theater director Marco(Ian Charleson, of GHANDI & CHARIOTS OF FIRE who would later die of AIDS;A sad footnote, Dario revealed in an interview that Charleson informed him at the end of the shoot that he was HIV positive)attempting the stage after a successful horror movie career despite being rejected by critics, and pal Mira(Daria Nicolodi, Dario's former squeeze), her agent and confident. But, the serial killer is quite driven and a showdown between them will, of course, occur in the theater as Marco has added an interesting change to the production using the crows at his disposal.  I think this is Dario at his most savage & nihilistic. Although he has certainly made later gruesome films(..such as his Masters of Horror entries and SLEEPLESS would suggest), this film really ups the ante in pure violence towards the victims of the psychopath. His method of forcing Betty to watch was admittedly a gag by Dario regarding the type of audience who like to look away from the more horrific parts of horror movies. I found myself rubbing my eyes every time she just has to blink(..brilliantly, Dario shoots the pricking from point-of-view achieving a tormenting effect from our perspective as if we were the ones with the scotch taped needles holding our eyes open). I like how Dario will show the widened eyes of Betty, horrified at what she's being forced into watching, as little blood tears down the needles when she has no choice but blink. The photographic work of Ronnie Taylor is impeccable, such as the crow's point-of-view shot in the theater at the end as it searches for the killer. Or, when the camera ""travels"" through rooms in the theater following the killer who wishes to see his muse from a box seat. Or, the dream sequence where we are taken into Betty's memory of an event regarding her mother's death by a certain killer, donning the same mask and gloves as the one causing her trauma at present. The highlight, in my opinion, is the peephole bullet-fire sequence, masterly staged by all involved as the camera follows a bullet which shoots through the eye of a victim, exploding from the back of her head, going through a telephone Betty planned to use to call for help. We even get a crow pecking the eyeball from the killer(..to add to this vicious scene, the crow is shown with the eyeball rolling around in it's beak). Only aspect I didn't care for, often pointed out by naysayers of the film, is the ""final"" ending which I personally felt was a bit unnecessary, but I guess Dario wanted to point out that Betty was indeed not like her mother, a woman with sadomasochistic tendencies which, in a twist, relate to why the killer torments our heroine. The rock music used during the violent scenes didn't bother me, because I felt that those moments of wicked graphic attacks needed a jarring thud which heavy metal can often provide.",1
"This is definitely a girl movie. My husband found it utterly boring, but I think this is a really sweet movie. It's amazing to think that just a note can bring so many people together. This is a great get-away for anyone who loves a cute, funny romance!",1
"This is an excellent movie and I would recommend it to everyone. Mr. Drury's acting is top notch as it always is and he blends well with the other actors in the movie. Can't give away any of the suspense or drama found in the movie. Hell to pay is a must see movie!!! The plot was very suspenseful. I would watch this movie over and over again because it has all the elements of a great western movie. It was very authentic in how they displayed the components dealing with this movie which includes the guns, horses, and clothing. The soundtrack is enjoyable and adds flavor to the movie. James Drury has the right touch when picking out a movie to be involved with. This is a another winner for the western genre. !!!!!",1
"Okay, now I know where all those boring cop/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. ""Scene Of The Crime"" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.  I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson ""Uncle Wiggly""? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.  In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter ""nobody talks like that!"" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.  A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more ""realism"" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly ""truths"" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.  Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!",0
"This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.",0
"Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole ""story"" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.  Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?",0
"Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.",1
I know if I was a low budget film maker I would probably be checking this page to find out what people are saying about it. So I really hope the creators of the movie actually read this! I think you should find a way to repay me for the hour and a half of life I just wasted watching this garbage. Please STOP making movies about something you probably fantasize about. Just stop making movies all together...you are one of the reasons it is so hard for indie filmmakers to make it big. Do the world a favor and get a job a McDonalds or something so you can do something productive with your life! I feel like calling blockbuster to complain that they actually carried this film in their store.,0
"I watched this movie three times at different ages of my life and always did enjoy it very much indeed. This Can-Can is an authentic explosion of joie de vivre, like Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly musical, but in French way. And a Jean Renoir nice tribute to his time, his friends, lovers, music and dances. It is at same time a show business chronicle of that age, full of affection and French mood. It is too a clear tribute to the Impressionism (people who likes impressionistic painters will like this picture). It is particularly a tribute to Toulouse-Lautrec and, of course, to Jean Renoir father, Pierre-Auguste. You will find hear a trustworthy and splendid colored recreation of some Renoir master work. Excellent casting, scenery, sound-effects and music. Even it tell us about the creation of Parisian Moulin Rouge, obviously it is a fiction story (and not very original by the way, as it fall down in the very well know moral that the show must go on). But the Jean Renoir production is great.",1
"I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.  Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.  It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.  I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.",1
"I have no qualms with how the movie does NOT capture New Jersey (like Zach, I'm from there). Fine. Whatever. I lived there WAY long enough. I don't need to see a movie that captures the Garden State.  What I do have qualms with is how bad this movie is. Let's make it easy on you. We'll use some bullet-points. There are probably some spoilers that follow. (Not that you wouldn't be able to predict the movie ANYWAY):   -The music placement was maddeningly forced and patronizing. Example: Large: ""What are you listening to?"" Sam: ""The Shins. Ever heard of 'em?"" ""No."" ""Listen to this song - it will change your life!"" And then they proceed to play that Shins song that was in a McDonalds commercial. (Don't you love when the characters in a movie blatantly tell you - the viewer - how to react to something? I love that! Hey, they should have put subtitles during various scenes instructing us to ""chuckle,"" ""Say 'aaaaaw'"" ""cry"" ""feel inspired"" etc.)   -The scenes were SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example: The entire movie. But no, really, example: They're in the rainy quarry by the ark. Large runs up - in the pouring rain (oh he's SO TORMENTED!) - on top of a piece of heavy machinery and SCREAMS! Oh how moving! But wait! Here comes Sam and his buddy (the annoying drug addict), and they ALL SCREAM!!!! BUT WAIT!!!! OH MY GOD!!!! Here it comes! THEY KISS!!! LONG, DEEP!!!! IN THE RAIN!!!!!!!!   -The dialogue was SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example. They're leaving the ark and Sam says something like, ""Hey. Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."" And the guy says back, ""You, too."" Oh...Oh my! I never realized...could it be? Oh my God it is! Large's life is like...ohmigod...AN INFINITE ABYSS!!!! Another example: Large and Sam in the airport. Sam says something like, ""Is this goodbye?"" Not enough for ya? OK, Largeman says something like, ""This isn't a period at the end of the sentence... it's an ellipses."" And guess what happens when he tries to walk down the jetway and go back to his life in LA. You know, what? Don't guess. It's a waste of your time.  -It's a Grade Z Wes Anderson rip-off movie. When not busy being melodramatic and cliché, the movie spends lots of times with crazy-kooky-off-kilter characters. Hey, Sam's brother... thank you Zach Braff for including him, because it really made the movie so much more textured. Also ripping off Anderson: the dialogue. Scene: Sam and Largeman are in a bar. In walks friends, ""Vagina!"" says one of them. Then they see him sitting with Sam, so one of the friends says, ""Sorry I said vagina."" And Sam says, ""It's OK.""   -Inventive cinematography that's not inventive but pointless and annoying. Give me a break with the speed-up/slow down of film. Again, Wes Anderson does it effectively in his movies. And it was done well in ""Donnie Darko."" But, really, it was pointless. Wow. A crazy party where people are taking X and snorting coke. Better roll out all the tricks!   -You can count the good moments on one hand (even if you're missing fingers). That's what makes it even WORSE. The retarded quarterback thing...well, that was good! The little thing he (largeman) says as they're about to enter the quarry (something about huffing turpentine)...that was good! Oh, wait, that's about it.  You know, Zach Braff is, I think, always a little too cute. But, he's likable. But, man, this is forced, pretentious, melodramatic (have you gotten that yet?), overly cute, overly everything. This movie is terrible. Apparently, I'm outnumbered, as this waste of time is currently rated an 8.0.  Please, though, if you're looking for something truly poignant and subtle and unique DO. NOT. RENT. THIS. MOVIE.",0
"This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.",0
"After their star cross-country runner dies after a race, the members of a track team are stalked and killed by a mysterious masked murderer seeking vengeance for the girl's death.  From the beginning of this film, it was quite obvious it was not going to be very good (at least as far as true quality goes). The 'dramatic' track race at the end of the introduction scene was one of the least believable sporting events I've ever seen in a film. It would seem that the winner of the race had never actually run before in her entire life. Not just run track. . . but, run at all. Ever. From there, we get a horribly unrealistic female Navy member who was breaking numerous appearance rules with her jewelry and make-up, not to mention the fact that her hair was hanging loose onto her collar while in uniform. Ridiculously awkward camera angles, pathetically done gore effects, and acting that ranged from frighteningly over-the-top to boringly under done (all in one actor, mind you) all help to make this film one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films ever made. On the other hand, the writing wasn't all that terrible and the story was actually okay. But, the direction was horrible, made worse by offensively bad cinematography. The acting ranged from acceptable to just plain abysmal. Regardless of all the embarrassingly bad elements, however, there's something here, whether it be cheese or something else that I can't figure out, that makes the film extremely enjoyable and very worthy of a watch. Maybe it was just Vanna White.  Obligatory Slasher Elements:  - Violence/Gore: Death scenes were fun enough, but the gore was just awful: blood squirts from impossible angles, no actual gashes or wounds from knives, etc. But, this film has the first 'death by football' scene I've ever seen.  - Sex/Nudity: There was a bit of nudity (I mean, Linnea Quigley is in it, after all), and some overly horny high schoolers, but nothing to excess.  - Cool Killer(s): If you think leather gloves, stop watches, track suits, and fencing masks are cool, this one is for you.  - Scares/Suspense: Not really any at all. There is one moment that takes place in the girls' locker room that I was preparing myself to be scared at. . . but, it just led to some typical stupidity and was ruined for me.  - Mystery: A little, but if you can't figure out the killer's identity about 20 minutes into the film, then I'm not too sure about your powers of deduction.  - Awkward Dance Scene: There's a great impromptu jam session (""Graduation Day Blues"") with a guitar & harmonica that leads to some awesome 80s bopping. This is followed shortly by some kind of weird blend of 70s disco and 80s break dancing that was probably the scariest part of the film.  Final verdict: 4/10. Don't take it too seriously and you might enjoy it (just like most everything else Troma touches).  -AP3-",0
"I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.",1
"I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.  Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice ""the Rocket"" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable.",1
I have no idea why everyone hates this movie to call it garbage a travesty an unexceptable sequel is just unfair i mean what else could they have made for a sequel then. Cause seriously I think it should have had a sequel (Rodney Dangerfield) says: hey everyone were all going to get laid and then a little dancing goffer and thats it thats the end of Caddyshack even though the film rating on first one was (R) and the second one was (PG) it was still lots of fun .  (7/10),1
"This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.  Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.  You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beast—part comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.  Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it.",1
"I decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.  There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....  Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone...",0
"I first saw this movie at a premiere-party in Mr. Zwarts hometown Fredrikstad. There, between directors, musicians and other Norwegian celebrities I laughed and laughed... I just couldn't stop. If you like a comedy with black humor, sharp lines and excellent acting - this is one flick you HAVE to see! It's like mixing ""True Romance"" with ""The Wedding Singer"" and add a dash of ""Mad about you"" Hilarios!  10 Points!",1
"I hope, from his seat on Heaven's comedic throne, Spike Milligan can see and can enjoy this film, as Terence Ryan and Ken Tuohy have taken a book that the author himself said writing it ""nearly turned me mad"" into a joy to watch.  The film tells the story of the Irish town of Puckoon and the problems befallen upon it when the partition between Northern Ireland and the Republic is drawn up, cutting its way through the centre of the village and, more worringly, through the middle of the churchyard. This causes some deceased, buried in the Catholic churchyard, to now be in the Protestant north - and so the local priest, assisted by a wide variety of eccentric locals, aims to move the bodies back undercover of darkness, and so avoiding the bureaucratic British border guards.  It was inspired work to cast the Irish comedian and poet Sean Hughes to play the part of Madigan. He brings an innocence to the part, especially in his to-camera pieces (which is normally where he interacts with the voiceover of Richard Attenborough, playing supposedly the writer/director of the film). Daragh O'Malley playing Father Rudden is also worthy of considerable praise; and the rest of the cast, from the household names like Elliott Gould and Griff Rhys Jones to people with what would normally be called 'bit parts' - such as Spike's daughter Jane who plays Madigan's wife give 100% The credit for this goes, in no small part, to the wonderful characterisations given by Spike in the original book.  I could argue that the film is slightly too long, or that Elliott Gould's Irish accent left a little to be desired, but those would be only minor points and take nothing away from the excellence of this film.",1
"This seemed really similar to the CHILD'S PLAY movies except so much worse. A lawyer tries to save a criminal, who was convicted of killing his son, from execution. She fails. The lawyer's daughter then finds a puppet that the killer had buried with his son and is immediately attached to it. Then after several people are seriously injured they find the little girl secretly talking to the doll saying that she didn't hurt anyone. Throughout this movie I found myself asking myself ' why am I watching this cheeze?' over and over. The end sucked so bad that I went and watched the Disney cartoon version right after and slept with the light on.",0
"Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie ""Monster Man"" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) ""sex scene"" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix ""Dude Where's My Car"" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down ""Hitcher"", add a redneck version of the antagonist from ""I Madman"" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a ""horror film"" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the ""hero"" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, ""Monster Man"" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse)",0
"1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having ""game"", or being either a ""player"" or a ""baller"". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of ""A Night at the Roxbury"".   2) Saying ""The V.I.P."" The term ""V.I.P."" in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by ""The"" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people.   3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as ""fans"", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the ""United States"" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that ""If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid.""   4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of ""Keys to the V.I.P.""   5) Last but not least, ""Keys to the V.I.P.""...for all the above reasons and more.",0