Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic "Ed Wood" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.<br /><br />But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And "Glen or Glenda," his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.<br /><br />"Glen or Glenda" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called "The Scientist" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled "I Changed My Sex!" was previously to be based.<br /><br />Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that "Glen or Glenda," despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. "Glen or Glenda" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams "Pull the string!" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.<br /><br />I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies "innocent fun" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if "Citizen Kane" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then "Glen or Glenda" is probably the Mariana Trench.

One of the funniest films I ever saw in the theater back in the early '70s, and sadly, it's only been on TV a few times since. This movie should be released on video. It's Sellers at his sleaziest, slimiest best as a crooked hospital administrator. Great cast, great movie. If anyone has a good VHS copy, I'd love to buy it.

The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house.

William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.<br /><br />The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances. <br /><br />It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.<br /><br />I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.<br /><br />Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.<br /><br />As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can.

Vincente Minelli movies are usually worth your time; Meet Me in St Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful. I awaited this movie with great interest. But what a disappointment. <br /><br />Some Came Running is scene after scene of go-nowhere fatalism. Sinatra is a sad sack, returned from the war to find disappointing family relationships, a disappointing floozy hanging on him, living in disappointing digs as a gal persuades him to finish his disappointing writing project. The movie has a big dramatic finish in which a disappointing villain catches up with Sinatra and MacClane and something disappointing happens. The sequence is intended to be tension-filled but Minelli is no Hitchcock; he gets so distracted by pretty colors, he doesn't notice the scene is a wheezing cliché and the characters are so thinly-drawn and poorly developed we don't particularly care that they get shot. (especially MacClane) But that's the only real cinematography in the project. Otherwise we look at constipated characters standing around bars & living rooms getting on each others nerves for two hours. Hell IS other people, apparently.<br /><br />There is nothing going on in this movie. The dilemma of soldiers returning to displacement and indifference after WW2 is handled more deftly in 'The Best Years of Our Lives.' And either of two Inge products, 'Splendor in the Grass' and 'Picnic' covers the desperation of being trapped in a dead-end town, with much more poignance.

As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.<br /><br />I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in "the day." He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.<br /><br />The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.<br /><br />Although the story of the "God Particle" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.<br /><br />In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.<br /><br />All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.<br /><br />It rates an 8.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

Sometimes it is difficult to watch films with subtitles (in this case Danish) but the watching is worth it. As the story progresses, the reasoning for the choice of two sisters, to take care of their father, is questionable but their society is different. Their choice leaves them alone until a French woman comes. There may be a question on why the French woman came to their place to stay and this is never fully developed. The feast which happens later as a result of unexpected funds from France is a source of unusual pleasure to all who attend and something they have not experienced before. It provides a fitting thank you for the kindnesses given to the guest. Filmed with a dark aura and the display of poverty, it is a beautiful experience for the viewer.

I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.<br /><br />In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.<br /><br />With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.<br /><br />But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.<br /><br />Score: EIGHT out of TEN

I found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.<br /><br />This "Felicia's Journey" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types! <br /><br />So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of "NEWS" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions! <br /><br />It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of "Little Red Ridinghood"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer! <br /><br />It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation! <br /><br />So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox/Norman Kaye "Man of Flowers" movie!!! <br /><br />Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!

Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.<br /><br />There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.<br /><br />Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.

A washed up reporter called Bart Crosbie (Pat O' Brien) blackmails gang boss Heinz Webber (George Colouris) for the money to pay for his son to have a life saving operation. In return he agrees to turn himself in for the murder of his editor, whom the gang killed in order to prevent an incriminating story being printed about them.<br /><br />Typical poverty-row b-pic of the time directed for far more than it's worth by Terence Fisher, who within months of making this would become one of the leading British horror film directors at the Hammer studio. The script is far-fetched and teen idol Tommy Steele (guitar in hand) was drafted in to sing a poor rock and roll number called "The Rebel" at a coffee bar that acts as a legitimate front for the gang's activities.

"Kalifornia" is a good Hollywoodish odyssey of suspense and terror which tells of two couples who drive cross-country to California to share the cost of gas: A pair of losers (Lewis & Pitt) and two wannabee artists, a photographer and a writer (Duchovny & Forbes). Pitt "nails" his character which is the focus of this somewhat predictable thriller. A good watch for those into psycho-killer flix.

Not sure one can call this an anti-war film, it shows war at an elite level. These are elite troops that know what they are doing and take great pride in it. Even when they are pacifist, they still enjoy the skill level and defeating their foes, even if it does go against being a pacifist. The movies is slow and rather uneventful and in many ways is rather tame as war movies go-more so by todays standards, no body parts flying off as in modern movies. It is brutal in other ways though as you see killing at a personal level. This is more of a thinking man's movie. Once you start to watch you don't want to miss anything. The thoughts of the men in the movie and their interactions, is what the movie is about- not the combat itself or a big exciting storyline. This maybe called a war triller.<br /><br />If you are into the skill of war, if you are into reading or seeing programs about the SAS and so on, YOU WANT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!<br /><br />Comparable movies are The Hill (1965) with Sean Connery, 49th Parallel (1941) with an all star cast, The Naked and the Dead (1958) with Cliff Robertson. All are unusual in their way and show war at a personal level. Enjoy!

There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.

I went to see THE ITALIAN JOB with mixed reviews in my head. I was pleasantly surprised with an entertaining close to 2 hours. I thought the cast was just great and so were the special effects, with the safe and truck just dropping out of sight. If you like fast paced action movies, this is the one to see.

I remember when I was five and my parents thought it was a regular cartoon movie....except when the bras and bullets started flying. I have to agree this movie will make anyone and everyone upset because it is set to discriminate everyone and anyone....but the truth is it is funny as hell as it is deep. I recommend this to anyone who likes cult classics. Also try Fritz the cat and the NINE Lives of Fritz the Cat. If I'm correct Ralph Bashki did that movie too.It involves a cat that goes through hard times with family, streets,jobs , etc. When I was old enough I rented all of these movies out. Because Coonskin was an offensive title during that era it was also labeled as Street Fighter. Ralph Bashki also made Cool World starring a very young Brad Pitt. Heavy traffic was another cartoon that dealt with the street life of a young man.

When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.<br /><br />The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart.

Well groomed, well behaved teen Meg Tilly must spend the night in a creepy mausoleum as an initiation into a high school club. Problem is a powerful psychic named Raymar was just buried there that day, but he isn't quite dead and he needs the life force of humans for his powers.<br /><br />Obscure horror film offers plenty of thrills and chills, an appealing and likeable cast, and most superior special effects.<br /><br />My rating: 7 out of 10.<br /><br />One Dark Night is rated R for Violence and Adult Themes.

Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.

This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the "next President" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!

I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.<br /><br />I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.<br /><br />The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.<br /><br />The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.<br /><br />Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.<br /><br />No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.

Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.<br /><br />Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..<br /><br />Take a pass.

Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.<br /><br />The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.<br /><br />As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.<br /><br />*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.<br /><br />In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!

This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.

I've never seen many online movies in most of my life, but if I'd pick any of them, I'd pick Spatula Madness, A clever reference to most movies like star trooper (etc.), using a camera, and wits of steel, Jason Steele mastered the art of turning a normal image into a painting, and then putting it all together with frame-by-frame animation to get a world inhabited by spatulas. the story begins at the middle, hows that for directors delight? then the middle is at the beginning, and so on, when I first watched it, I expected a soggy pixely look, but Jason, Like me, Loves looks, so took every detail to the max. although I don't recommend it for children, or would anybody besides me like it, but please search it up on the net (its a short film, look up film cow), its style reminds me of south park, but less violent. 10 for the look, 6 for the laughs, and 6 for the story, it all comes to a 10/10, good work<br /><br />Jason Steele, I'm anxious to see the movie.

Get the CD instead. The show is tame, and the editing sucks. The crowd gets way too much screen time, as does Till Lindemann. The cameras spend more time on the same kid shaking his head around in the same way (which leads me to believe it's the exact same shot) than they do during Richard Kruspe's solo in Weisses Fleisch. The scenes change so quickly it's impossible to tell where the camera is pointed, and the replays are simply redundant. Not worth the tape it's recorded on.

Surprisingly not terrible and well animated for one of Disney's straight to video throw away sequels. Like the previous sequel (The Lion King 2) I was glad that Disney brought back most of the original voice actors which makes a big difference and they kept a good level of traditional animation. The plot wanders around for a while but we are distracted by an unending string of jokes ranging from hilarious to dull. To break up the detached plot and jokes they gave us some silly musical sequences, which much like the jokes, range from entertaining to a quick trip to the fridge. For the most part the MST3K-like moments are bland and full of untapped potential and really don't add a whole lot to the movie other than to act as a vehicle for an hour-long flashback. The new characters are at least likable, and the old characters are out doing their thing so I can't fault them there. Overall this movie in not bad and it makes for a nice frivolous filler between the more serious Lion King titles.

Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.<br /><br />Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.

I recently got the chance to view "The Waterdance", and quite liked it. I don't really understand why its called that as there isn't really any dancing going on there, except maybe for the dancing at the strip club near the end. We are introduced to the main characters throughout the movie, invalids in a hospital. The story shows a love affair between a physically sisabled guy and a healthy woman, which is a very sweet story.Unfortunately, you don't get to see movies like that today. Im not "stuck in a time warp", im not saying that everything during the 80s and early 90s was better than today, but I really think the movie industry is deteriorating and there's much we can learn from old movies-by old movies i mean anything from 1920-1998.

Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) is just killing time getting a job. Her real ambition is to marry Eddie and have a baby. <br /><br />April (Diane Baker) is too innocent to stay that way for long and falls in love too easily, a dangerous combo. <br /><br />Greg (Suzy Parker) is a go-getter and wants to be an actress. <br /><br />All three are doomed for dramatics in 'The Best of Everything', a 1959 soap opera/morality play/sometimes solid movie that is aging by the second.<br /><br />Set in the cut-throat world of paperback publishing, its not as trashy as "Valley of the Dolls" but not as vanilla as "Three Coins in the Fountain."<br /><br />The men in the mix - Brian Aherne, Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan and Robert Evans - are slick, well-dressed and no good, for the most part. Aherne is the resident sexual offender - will pinch anything walking by, and makes unwanted advances right and left. His character is offensive as hell, but its not played seriously at all. Harassment hadn't been discovered yet, I guess. Boyd works there, too, although you never see him actually doing anything. He's too busy being older, wiser and drunker. Evans is abroad just so Diane Baker can suffer in style - he's a rich kid who's gotten her in 'trouble' so instead of marrying her, as promised, he's taking her to get an 'operation.' <br /><br />Jourdan is a director who mistakenly has an affair with Parker. They share a fight scene which is fairly no-holds barred, in a movie like this anyway, but the scene is ultimately ruined by Parker's histronics. She ends up nearly stalking him, and she really didn't deserve such a lousy fate, her bad acting notwithstanding.<br /><br />Joan Crawford breathes fire as Amanda Farrow, the resident 'witch' who is automatically rude and dismissive of any of her legion of secretaries. Well they are younger, aren't they? Isn't that sufficient reason to hate a person? Caroline doesn't think so, as she admirably stands up to Miss Farrow every chance she gets. Crawford only gets to let loose once, when she tells her married boyfriend 'you can your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell' and slams down the phone. You never get to see the poor soul who dare crosses her. <br /><br />Martha Hyer's 'storyline', as it were, is extremely weak, and she is painfully over-the-top as an unmarried mother. Short of wearing a huge "W" (for 'whore') on her cardigan, she walks around like a pathetic mess for most of her screen time. Even worse, she is not given the courtesy of having it all 'tied up', one way or the other, at the end. It won't matter that much, but still..<br /><br />Its painfully obvious this all took place in a totally different world. People were nicer to one another for the most part and work was not a drag but something exciting, for a girl from outside NYC anyway.<br /><br />One unconvincing drunk scene aside, Hope Lange helps it seem reasonably real as Caroline, who at least has more than one side to her character. <br /><br />I admire that women are seen having an opinion, a chance and a choice. Not that its not wrapped in a nice bow, but it makes some points for equality. In 1959 that was probably noteworthy and possibly controversial. 7/10.

If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this "documentary" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.<br /><br />I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense.

This last Dutch speaking film of Verhooven made me laugh good. As a film buff looking for all the small details and cross references etc in any movie I can assure anyone interested in film art that this piece amuses all the senses. I haven't read Gerard Reves book, on which the film is based, but I still believe we get a candid picture of a somewhat self-conceited poet/writer who gets his (in a way - no spoiling here). An anti-hero surrounded by characters that have their ambiguous intentions, as has he. All this in a superbly packaged cinematography, Paul Verhopven manages to turn the otherwise rather cute "gesellich(?)" Dutch locations into a suspenseful film-noir setting, impressive work!

It has been a long time since I have been to a movie as lame and boring as this one. It is one thing to have a slow pace where characters are being developed in a progressive way, or some aspect of the movie clearly is enhanced by such pacing (such as 'Lost in Translation"). However, there is a difference between slow progression and outright stalling, as happened in this one. I guess from the look on Helen Mirren's face she must have been distraught by the disappearance of her husband!! Surprise, surprise!! What a marvelously creative moment the meeting of the mistress and wife was.(sarcasm) And what a great way that the whole story fell apart at the end. Truly a masterpiece.

Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back! This is a horror movie, not thriller, not suspense, a horror movie. Yes, this movie is a horror. Horrifyingly bad. After many years of lurking here at IMDb, I am actually moved to set up an account just so I (like at least one other reviewer here) can warn people DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! IT WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL, or at least your desire to live in a world that makes movies this bad, or at least an hour and a half of your life if you are not wise enough to hit the fast forward button.<br /><br />Seriously, I'd love to hear the director's voice over on an "enhanced" DVD (there's another horrifying thought) to see what the hell they were thinking. The producers had to assume there were enough suckers out there to fall for the Val Kilmer name to make this film at least break even in international distribution.<br /><br />I actually had the misfortune to pick this to watch on movies on demand, which provided no subtitles to the Russian dialog. Not that it mattered much. Straining to hear the Russian, translate it in your head (if you can) only to find out how dull it is just adds insult to injury.<br /><br />I will give this movie a "1" because I cannot give it a lower rating, and because it did achieve one remarkable thing. It somehow made an almost entirely subterranean movie NOT feel claustrophobic. Now that's a dubious achievement.<br /><br />HERE'S YOUR SPOILER: And the ending, holy mother (no pun intended) it's like they ran out of money and just decided to stop filming. The "climax" of the film literally happens seconds before the end and is solved by the simplest escape I have ever seen on film. Exercise your simple escape mechanism too if you find yourself watching this - the off button.

Ugh, what an embarrassing episode last night! It was either a failed script for "ABC Afterschool Special", or the product of an earnest rookie writer, just out of college, making an homage to that classic PC anti-gun homily from 1974, "The Gun". In fact hubby & were disappointed that the closing shot wasn't of The Gun being melted down like in the movie!<br /><br />No, I'm not some NRA shill. It's just that when the producer of an intelligent & nuanced series gets it in his head that I should be subjected to a didactic dramatization of his personal Cause, I'd appreciate it if the lecture at least wasn't delivered via 2-by-4. Geez!<br /><br />OK, the sociology lesson is over. The Message has been delivered. The Important Episode has been aired. Now let's get back to some entertaining episodes that try to respect our intelligence.

Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.

This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being "people of color" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction.

BELL WITCH HAUNTING (aka THE HAUNT) is an American horror movie supposedly based on real events that took place during the period 1817 to 1821.<br /><br />This is not to be confused with BELL WITCH: THE MOVIE, a movie starring Betsy Palmer based on the same events. However, I can say that I wish I had seen this other movie instead of the one I saw! I enjoyed Betsy Palmer's chilling performance in Friday THE 13TH. As such, I believe that even on a bad day, she'd pull off a better performance than anyone involved in the travesty known as THE HAUNT.<br /><br />With regard to my heading, this movie is not painful to watch because the content is disturbing. It is painful to watch because it is just downright boring.<br /><br />Reading the positive reviews for this movie, I could only identify three possibilities. The first possibility - these authors were involved in the production in some way. The second possibility - the authors whilst not directly involved were paid to write positive reviews after production was completed. The final possibility - none of these authors has seen a sufficient number of horror movies and therefore is inexperienced with the concepts that successful attempts utilise.<br /><br />The setting for the plot is Robertson County, Tennessee. James Johnston receives a visit from two journalists eager to hear the story of the Bell Witch. The story is told as a series of flashbacks. A series of supernatural events begin happening at the home of John Bell and his family. It soon transpires that a vengeful spirit is behind it all.<br /><br />On the surface the plot appears to be a standard poltergeist affair, albeit one based on real events.<br /><br />Where execution of the brilliant concept is concerned however, just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong. And then some!<br /><br />First, the acting. The acting is almost uniformly terrible right across the board. This factor does the most damage to the production, undermining any possible credibility of belief or interest on the part of the viewer. The voice of the vengeful spirit sounds more like a teenage girl experiencing teenage angst rather than a powerful demonic force expressing malevolent intent. I almost laughed when I heard some of her lines. Unfortunately, this voice began to become very annoying very quickly! I may not have been alive in the 1800s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any young woman alive at that time would speak in the way that this "ghost" does!<br /><br />Second, the direction. The direction is haphazard and very uneven. Some scenes show promise but potential is squandered by the clearly inexperienced director. Nothing is done with the camera, with sound or with lighting to add intensity to the scenes intended to be scary. The atmosphere is equally flat. A vengeful spirit is supposedly behind supernatural occurrences. Yet the effects are so incredibly inept that no one who has seen a proper horror movie would buy into them. I'll give one example. In one scene, the spirit attacks someone. See the scene for yourself. It's almost funny - almost.<br /><br />Third, the script. Whilst it may be the case that the events shown are faithful to accounts of real occurrences, it cannot be denied that most scenes are incredibly flat and boring. Scenes as short as two minutes feel much longer thanks to the poor dialogue - dialogue that fails to add depth to the characters or story. This movie is far too reliant on conversations to advance the story. Whilst this style was also the case with British movies from the British horror heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, it cannot be denied that the dialogue exchanges were always interesting to watch in these more professional earlier works. Peter Cushing for example could read a telephone directory and still hold attention of the viewers. The same cannot be said of the actors in THE HAUNT.<br /><br />Finally, the humour. The ill-guided attempts at humour in this movie are excruciating. An obese boy is the butt of many jokes. One particularly awful scene sees the said boy going to the outside toilet. This scene should never have been included - but it is and complete with sound effects in case you fail to understand what he is doing!<br /><br />The only positive points about the movie are the location and the costumes. The decision to shoot the picture near the original location helped add some authenticity. The costumes were also well chosen.<br /><br />Overall, THE HAUNT is an appalling movie. It is not even in the "so bad it's good" league. It is instead just boring. I advise everyone to save their money and avoid this movie like the plague. Don't even bother seeing it for free!<br /><br />I have never seen the other movie about the Bell Witch. But it really couldn't be any worse than THE HAUNT. Could it? I'll give this other movie a chance if I can track it down.<br /><br />In the meantime, I would advise everyone on here to check out some proper horror movies about ghosts and haunting. THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE GRUDGE (Japanese original) and ONE MISSED CALL (Japanese original) are good places to start.

The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.<br /><br />Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2

Wow - most of the audience just seemed to shake their heads through much of this documentary at the sheer wizardry displayed on screen.<br /><br />The shift from the early days as a New-York based black-American phenomenon to current days as a racially diverse subculture (and largely West Coast-based) is profiled well.<br /><br />The humble turntable is not given the respect of any traditional musical instrument, but it can be so much more versatile and technically complex. These DJs take the required skills for any musical instrument - dexterity, rhythm and timing, among others - and apply them to a new technology with several more variables.<br /><br />DJ Qbert's comment that he pictures what "music" must sound like on advanced planets and then works it out, seemingly silly at first, makes more and more sense as you watch these guys go and spit out a multitude of sounds that no single traditional instrument could ever create!<br /><br />Some critics have said that this film focuses too much on certain 'stars' and squanders an opportunity to profile the wider hip-hop culture. One film at a time people!

Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though.

This was really a "nightmare" of a film; i saw it about nine years ago on cable TV and haven't forgotten it since. Pixote is a 10-year old boy who lives in the streets of Sao Paulo (Brazil) and leads a criminal life in the company of his teenage friends Lilica, Dito and Chico; they steal, pimp, sell drugs and murder in order to survive each day...In the first half of the film Pixote is caught by the police and sent to a sadistic foster home where he witnesses every kind of abuse from the older inmates and guards to the rest of the kids; one night, Lilica's boyfriend is killed after a beating, so Pixote and his friends decide to escape during a riot. The rest of the film shows Pixote's descent into a criminal life; he doesn't show any feelings or remorse after killing someone, maybe because he knows that good feelings are of no use in the world in which he lives...But there is, however, a gentle scene in the middle of the film; Pixote and his friends are at the beach, missing (and wishing) one of his friends from the reformatory was there. I thought it was a poetic and melancholy scene in the middle of all these horrible events...the boys are obviously longing not only for their friend, but for a better life. Director Hector Babenco's "Pixote" is a brave and depressing film that doesn't shy away from showing the harshest reality many people -including myself- tend to ignore or misunderstand. This film will probably open your eyes and make you a better and compassionate person.

For fans of 1970s Hammer type horror films, this movie should be a treat. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that Peter Cushing was wasted on the worst episode. In general, however, this is a solid, spooky little movie. If this is not Amicus' best film, it's certainly one of them. The best episode, rightfully saved for last, is the one featuring Jon Pertwee as a horror film actor--it is really excellent. As good as Pertwee was in this role, it's hard to believe he didn't do more of these types of movies. All in all, this is an entertaining movie, which scared the heck out of me as a child, and which still gives me the creeps to this day.

I was very impressed with the latest production from Mick Molloy. As a fan of his, I was used to a different kind of humour than displayed here. He wisely opted with a more subtle, broad style of comedy in Crackerjack, rather than his usual low brow, in-your-face ramblings. It is, at times, inconsistent and un-even, but a decent script works past that, and makes for some entertaining viewing. Directed by Paul Moloney (who has directed almost every Australian TV series imaginable), Crackerjack tells the story of Jack Simpson, a bloke that belongs to his local bowls club for the sole reason of parking. When the club hits financial trouble, he is forced to bowl competitively in an attempt to raise the funds to save the club from becoming a poker machine haven. A familiar, and successful formula, that is handled well. There is no denying that the film owes it's success to the great casting of Molloy. He seemed to have a great rapport with Samuel Johnson, and excellent chemistry with Judith Lucy, and while the character is probably not a far stretch from his own personality, you can't help but wonder why he hadn't tried his arm at film earlier. To smooth out the in-experienced cast, the delightful Frank Wilson and Bill Hunter support, and often steal their scenes. They are two fine actors and the pair cruise through their roles with ease. Had it not been for the huge success of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', Crackerjack would have made it to number 1 at the Australian box office, but when you consider what he film is about and who is involved, even making it to number 2 was an outstanding effort. All in all, a witty, feel-good movie. Great cast, great crew, and a great soundtrack, combine to make one of the better Australian films of 2002. 7/10.

From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).<br /><br />The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.<br /><br />If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.

Miles O'Keeffe once again assumes the role of the mighty Ator in this the first sequel to the original film.<br /><br />What can I say? - This pretty much represents B-Movie Nirvana! <br /><br />The plot is ludicrous, the script is terrible, the acting is hammy throughout, the special effects....well let's not even go there! - all in all this movie is a veritable delight! <br /><br />Highlights of the film include Ator and Thong (his mute companion, not his undergarments) being attacked by invisible assailants in a cave (certainly saved on the fx budget there!), Ator battling what has to be the most unconvincing giant snake ever committed to celluloid, and of course, the infamous hangliding scene! <br /><br />There's one question I have though......at the end of the movie we see a huge atomic explosion when Ator supposedly destroys the Geometric Nucleus (as the narrator tells us)......how in the hell did Ator destroy it and manage get out alive?! Did he fashion some form of primitive timer/detonator or something? <br /><br />Oh well, such an illogical ending really only adds to the movies overall charm - they just don't make them like this anymore!

He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?

Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".<br /><br />Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.<br /><br />15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****

This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.<br /><br />Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.

Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.<br /><br />Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.<br /><br />Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)<br /><br />It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.

(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.<br /><br />A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.<br /><br />I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.<br /><br />I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.<br /><br />Overall an artistic disappointment.<br /><br />

The tagline on the box hails, "100 TRAPPED PASSENGERS... 3,000 VENOMOUS VIPERS!" You almost have to admire that degree of "no chance in hell we're ever going to deliver on this promise" bullshit. I could admire The Asylum's hucksterism more so if they made movies that, well, you know, were good or, at the very least, worth a damn. Haha, and it's what I like about theses movies. They are garbage. You put them in a toilet and then you flush. It worth the price if you are a fan of cheesy movies. It may become a cult classic among many fans. The gore scenes are effectives, there's not much I can say, it's a Z flick that parody the new movie with Samuel L. Jackson, hell, it may be better so who knows!

The plot is predictable. It has been done many times in other movies. You have competing summer camps in this one: the rich kids vs. the underachievers competing for "bragging" rights in the typical camp contests, while the kids and consolers pursue pranks, sex, and "a good time!" "Are You Ready For The Summer?" Meatballs is the first (and best) summer camp movie for feel-good comedy. As others have posted, it's no Citizen Kane, but this type of movie isn't meant to be. The film works because of the wonderful comic timing and classic one-liners of Bill Murray. His scenes with a camper where he tries to raise the kid's self-esteem are very good. Bill's one-liners throughout the film are very funny.<br /><br />I also like that this movie isn't dirty or explicit like so many other "teens at camp" movies today. There is some mild sexual innuendo and maybe one or two cuss words in the entire film. But Meatballs is the type of teen movie that is actually appropriate for the younger crowd. It's rated PG.<br /><br />This is a movie that you have to see a few times to get all of the jokes! When Bill Murray is on the screen or making one of his classic "PA Announcements" you are drawn to the film. Bill seems to carry the movie all by himself. But he does it so well, that when you see Meatballs, you will realize that this is the film that made him a star! A side note to this review is to avoid ALL of the Meatball movie sequels. They are horribly bad.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.<br /><br /> That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".

I loved this film! Fantastically original and different! A solid, intense, hard-core and suspenseful movie that has just the right touch of (dark?) humor. If you're tired of the typical, overdone, ridiculous Hollywood B.S. movies, how many big explosions and awful and unrealistic shoot em up gun fights that insult your intelligence can we take, then this film is for you. Fantastic characters that are wonderfully original and believable, and solid performances by all actors, not a weak character or performance in the film. Skip Woods' film is a breath of fresh air and I applaud his originality and efforts, his film has the feel of a cross between a Quentin Tarantino and a Cohen brothers film (not a bad mix at all in my opinion). This movie grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go, there's nothing boring or bubble gum about this film. The only disappointment is that nobody seems to know about it, everyone I've recommended it to has thanked me and shared my opinion on it. This film is a welcomed change/alternative from the canned Hollywood mainstream garbage being produced today, even with their big name actors, big explosions, special effects and huge budgets. It's a terrifically wild, intense, violent, graphic, humorous and raw (I mean that in a good way, no phony Hollywood polish here) ride. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film happen, you did an incredible job!

This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.

Well as a life long fan of Kung Fu films I have to say this is one of the best I have ever seen. Sure there is nothing special about the plot but man does it entertain. As does most movies of the genre. This film is packed with action and does not boar its viewers. It's so damn fun when I watch I have a smile on my face the whole time. This also has an impact on future films like Kill Bill. (Many of Kill Bill's Sound effects come from this film for example.) This is essential viewing for all knew viewers in Kung Fu. Form open to close this film is filled with fights that really are some of the better I have seen in the genre. There are few Kung Fu films out there that measure up to the sheer magic and entertainment of this film. So if in search of a Great Kung Fu movie check this one out for sure.

I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.<br /><br />After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.<br /><br />And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.<br /><br />The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.<br /><br />Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.

This films makes no pretentious efforts to hide its true genre -- a campy B movie. It will flat out tell you in the beginning the definition of campy. It should have also given the adjective meaning of cheese. But the two come together in this film in ways that make you go, "Hmmmmm... that's so stupid!" and then have you laughing. For example, there is a scene back in "16th Century Japan", which shows a couple of samurai walking in the foreground of a temple. In the background of the temple, there are several tourists looking off in the distance in slippers and shorts. Hmmmm... hahahah! I could not stop laughing. And the acting goes from decent, to bearable, to oh my Lord, but that's what makes it funny. You'll see some decent actors and then find others really terrible. I have to digress somewhat though because I have seen Stephanie Sanchez in several plays and she is awesome. Her air time in the film was pretty short though. I have also seen Bryan Yamasaki in several plays in the islands during my visits and he's also better in theatre than in this movie. Anyhow, it's an entertaining film, if you've got nothing to do on a weekday evening.

"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?<br /><br />I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.<br /><br />Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4 stars

this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.<br /><br />lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh<br /><br />whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.<br /><br />The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.<br /><br />this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7<br /><br />Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.

The first time I saw "Alice in Wonderland – an X-rated Musical Comedy", was in the early '80 in a Movie-Theater in N.Y. City with some friends. I remember we actually enjoyed it very much, although we were left wondering why all the "goodies" were covered by in various forms shaped colored patches and why the movie was suddenly jumping from one scene to the next one, leaving us guessing...what we just missed. Obviously it was the soft-core edited (chopped) version, which left me with the desire to watch it again soon, but in its original integral version. Well, more then 20 years went by, during which I forgot all about this movie and, only a few days ago, by sheer chance, I stumbled upon a heavily used VHS copy (which had seen better times: a bit washed-out colors, scratchy sound and a few flaws), but guess what? It's the original uncut version and, this time, I really had a ball! Humor, Musical and Porn may sound an awkward combination but, in this case, it really works and, unlikely the big majority of boring porn-flicks nowadays invading our screens, this is a really amusing and entertaining sex fantasy, which will not disappoint you. The direction is clever, the swift editing makes the movie fly like a bird, all the familiar characters are lovable or just plain funny, all the actors seem having a good time, the songs are catchy (worth mentioning the one about "growing up" sung by Alice at the beginning of the movie and the hilarious "What's a nice girl like you doing on a Knight like this"), the dance numbers are well choreographed and staged (amazingly energetic Terry Hall proves that she can "also" dance and dances enthusiastically her guts away...Don't worry, she also does what she was best known for...), the acting, the singing, the set, the costumes are of quality level and then...there is Kristine "Blue Eyes" DeBell, in the first starring role of her career and (oh boy!) she indeed has a few H.C. sequences! Personally I think they are absolutely not distasteful, on the contrary, they are spontaneous and quite arousing. She is young and (ohhh!) so very pretty; with the help of her new friends in Wonderland, she discovers her body and her sexuality so, she sings, she dances and...what do you expect? She is also experimenting sex! The closing sequence, when she finally makes love to her boy-friend, is exceptionally well photographed and directed and is the highlight of the movie. I think her "physique du role" (the innocent blue eyes and captivating smile) and her acting ability, make those explicit sequences more then acceptable and actually highly enjoyable. There is plenty of sex going on in (this) Wonderland and everybody seems eager to "get busy" with the first available boy(s) or girl(s), which means lot of hard-core action to be seen. On the other hand, some close-up shots, clearly "spliced in", just to make the "porn-hounds" really happy, are a bit redundant for my personal taste. In general, however, the sex-action is not offensive since handled with a great deal of humor and it blends almost seamlessly with the music, the dances and the comedy. If you think you and your partner can handle graphic sex, watch it together. Take my word, you will have an hour and a half of very good time (perhaps also an after-show extra action...) This is "Adult Entertainment" so be careful, don't leave this video around or among other kid's videos. If your 10 years old can put his hands on it, he might amuse himself, but you will be forced to provide embarrassing explanations about the reasons why "this" Alice behaves quite differently from the one he red about in Lewis Carroll novel or he watched on the Disney's video. I bet, you will not forget this "one-of-a-kind" very soon. It's a real shame that they don't mak'em like that anymore...! I give it a 9 out of 10.

Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as "Zombies") is a rare find – a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.<br /><br />I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed – the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors – aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.<br /><br />As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well – it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).

David Tennant and Sarah Parish's brilliant acting had me in tears as many of the scenes were so familiar to me. My husband suffered a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in 1977 and required a major operation which involved lifting his brain and plugging the leak. Like Tricia I was naive enough to expect that he would return to being his former self. After over 25 years of loving and caring for him he abandoned me without warning to go and live with a woman he hardly knew. He then petitioned for and I am now going through a divorce. I do hope the programme helped people to understand what it is like to cope with brain injury.

I have done quite a few reviews on IMDb and this film is unique in that I never saw the entire movie. It was so terribly stupid and unfunny that I just couldn't sit through it--though I tried.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this and any Mel Brooks movie I call "the Mel quotient". In other words, the better his movie, the less of him you see in the film. Think about it--The Producers and Young Frankenstein were great films and he was barely in them at all. BUT, films like Life Stinks and Space Balls are chock full of Mel and are pretty dopey movies (yes, I DID NOT LIKE Space Balls--but this isn't the place to talk about that).<br /><br />Second, apart from cancer, rectal itch and mental retardation, I can't think of a less funny topic than homelessness. This is just a comedy breaker. Think about it, folks. The FUNNIEST(?) scene in the movie has Mel making whoopee with Leslie Ann Warren in a dumpster!! And this is funny in what way?

"Life hits us in the face........we must try to stay beautiful"<br /><br />Debut movie from one of Belgian's best artists (he sings songs), Tom Barman. A long awaited movie and---happy happy joy joy for Flemish filmmaking---really worth watching, and a promising piece of work! It takes us into the lifes of 8 main characters that live through a Friday- and night. The title says a lot about the way we spend time with them: we float as they do into Friday night's party where they kinda' meet.<br /><br />It's rhytmic style is very 'thought off'. Superb use of music. It sometimes takes the upperhand to the images and then you feel its power. Gainsbourg! QOTSA! The party scene (20minutes???) is a thrilling visual experience cause of the way that it's shot. It keeps you really with it while it's set in a small place with a lot of people having a big party.....so hard to shoot.<br /><br />Thank you menijèr Barman for making this daring movie in these, already some years going, poor times of Flemish filmmaking. You made my day!

Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic "She's the Man." For that reason alone, "Sydney White" was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In "Sydney White," this idea is thrown out the window.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven "dorks" that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's "Prince Charming," who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.<br /><br />Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.<br /><br />The plot is basically that of "Snow White." What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to "Snow White" are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the "witch" is far too despicably witchy, the seven "dorks" are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named "Dinky" is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clichéd to recommend.

I love documentaries. They are among my favorite genres of film. Before seeing this film I hadn't seen one that I hadn't liked.<br /><br />The premise for this film is a great one. The execution is well done. There were some times early on when I laughed and smiled. Yet as the film went on the more tedious and irritating it became. This could have been something special had the subject not been such an inarticulate, childish, inept putz. I appreciate his passion for film, but quit your whining. If you're short on funds, maybe you shouldn't have so many kids, or spend so much money on alcohol. Maybe you should have gone to film school, or at least graduated from high school. Maybe you should have lived life and gotten perspective and experiences that could add to your vision. <br /><br />There are so many people out there with stories that are interesting, funny and poignant. To see this guy chosen over any of them is nothing less than crass. If you want to do a documentary on a film maker, why not do one on someone from China or Iran, a film maker with REAL problems? <br /><br />Two final questions:<br /><br />Who takes a little kid to see Apocalypse Now?<br /><br />How many times did this guy say "man"?

Inane, awful farce basically about a young man who refuses to conform or better uses non-conformity to attain his objectives-fool his parents into thinking that he is attending a college. Truth is that this jerk has been rejected by every school he has applied to. After viewing this junk, you will see why.<br /><br />What a ridiculous name- South Hampton Institute of Technology. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the initials of this school of nonsense. Problem with these type of films is that in the end, the non-conformist becomes the accepted mode.<br /><br />Let's step back to the world of reality and call this film what it really is- excessive manipulative junk!

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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!

1969 was the year. New York City was the place. Putney Swoope was the second Robert Downey film to achieve some recognition. The first was Chaffed Elbows (1966). Putney Swoope achieved a much wider release. Pound (1970) and Greasers Palace (1972) were even more profane and obnoxious. Those 2 films were mean spirited to the point that they actually stalled the Prince's feature film career for several years.<br /><br />The subject at hand is Putney Swoope. And it is a mad farce/satire that has to be seen to be believed. I'm not going to go through the plot here. What Plot?? People looking for a plot are going to be scratching their heads. Keep Scratching!! This film is not about PLOT! One could compare this to a Mel Brooks movie; only without the Hollywood parody party that Mel always threw. I also see a little bit of Monty Python in this. By the way: This film was shot before Monty had debuted on the BBC!!! <br /><br />I notice that the Gags and Lines that are drop dead hilarious DO NOT transfer well by word of mouth. You have to see them within the context of the film. There are some flaws in the film; but even the flaws are unique. For instance: Actors often repeat the SAME LINE over and over again; and somehow it works. How Many Syllables Mario? Putney Says the Borman Six Girl Has Got to Have Soul! etc...<br /><br />The B/W photography is outstanding. The Sound/Score is even better! The editing is only so-so. The acting is above average. The script is priceless. The jokes are as un-PC as you can get: MR. Bad News says "Sonny Williams just got caught in a motel with a 13 year old girl" Putney says "Well at least He's not superstitious" Uptight conservatives beware. The Anti-Establishment mindset of this film will drive you straight out of the room. Nothing is sacred.<br /><br />There are many things in this film that pertain to today: NO SMOKING!!! Reverse Racism; with African Americans treating Caucasions like trash. The manipulation of Mass Media over the masses; Madison Avenue, Deroit, Hollywood intentionally pedaling something that any 8 year old can tell is pure garbage; The Internet, I'm talking about "the drum"; Interracial dating; I could go on and on....<br /><br />I should also mention that there is about 8 min of this film that was shot in 16 mm Color. These are the commercials shot by Putney's agency. The spots work fairly well the first time around. They get tiresome though on repeated viewings. The real magic here is within the B/W sections of the film. It's the non-scenically lines they stay with you: "Rent Yourself A CHORT Schmuck". "I love You, I Love You, I love You... did you take your pill?". "anything that I have to say would just be redundant". And a host of others. I also really like the bit with the mounted minnow up on the wall: "The game warden wanted me to throw it back... I put up such a fight, I decided to have it mounted!" <br /><br />Standouts in the cast include Buddy Buttler as Putney's bodyguard #1. He should have been a much bigger star. Antonio Fargas as the Arab. He did go on to stardom on TV and in Films. Arnold Johnson has the right look as Putney Swoope. Robert Downey used his Own voice instead because Arnold couldn't remember some of his lines. Also Downey realized that He could fill in any additional dialog/jokes later on if he dubbed his Lead actor. <br /><br />The film does have some shortcomings. The short run time is one. I wish the beginning with the White board members would have been extended. Stan Gotlieb and Allen Garfield are outstanding. The ending seams to have been thrown together as if he just couldn't think of any more gags. All in all, this is one of the Best low-budget independent films of it's time. A time when very few indys' played outside of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and L.A. Anyone who loves satire and comedy should see this at least twice. Downey's Putney Swoope is Ahead of and Beyond it's time.

First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.<br /><br />Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.<br /><br />Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.<br /><br />There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.<br /><br />Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, "It's just a movie," and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.<br /><br />What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan/Hawaiian/British/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.<br /><br />The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.<br /><br />Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)

This film had a distinct Woody Allen feel about it, so if you're not a fan of dry humor, dark humor, or back-handed humor, you probably could find something else to do. If you ARE, however, this is quirky, with some nice twists and a flowing, natural dialog.<br /><br />The story itself is quite engaging, not quite like a train wreck from which you cannot disengage your eyes, but close. I mean that in the best way possible. The intrigues are plenty, the twists are enough to fully engage the senses, and the characters are downright lovable.<br /><br />I had a great time with this movie.<br /><br />It rates an 8.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10

I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years. <br /><br />Here's why: <br /><br />Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen. <br /><br />This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.<br /><br />I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.

I don't know what Dick steel was talking about, but I found this film to be one of Japan's most thrilling epics to date. As for Armageddon or Deep Impact, or for that matter The day after tomorrow is pale in comparison. For what I know of films, most of the catastrophes in films are basically run of the mill asteroid flicks or one of which of Global Warming. This how ever ran a different course. A course of natural means where the earth's crust is beginning to erode to such a degree, that it will take another piece of land with it for the ride. What the scientific teams had to do was create a way to stop the erosion from going to far and Sinking Japan altogether. In most cases this would simply be called tectonic shifting on steroids. I found the characters rather appealing in every way, from the child who lost her mother only to face her own demise among unfamiliar friends. Or the rescue girl who does all the she can to save lives in the face of disaster. Or a man who thought he could change her mind not to be such a dare devil and go with him to safety, only to become the hero himself and save his homeland. And let's not forget, how the rest of the world just shucked them all back only to be forgotten, by having the world turning their backs on the Japanese citizens who cried for help. This was a great movie in all aspects. What Dick is trying to say is that this movie was not Hollywood made, that it was made in Japan, that it had characters which rival other actors around the world, that the effects are very gorgeous as he mentioned but it's all he was waiting for, and nothing else. He lacks the vision of what's important to everyone, and why this film had every element of feeling, of grandeur, and of humanity. I thought this film was top rate, and I have seen many disaster films to know that Japan Sinks was possibly one of the most original and well thought out projects I have witnessed. I really hope Shinji Higuchi will make another of such films. Oh and by the way, I am not Japanese, though in many ways I wish I was. I am Canadian, born and raised. And an avid movie buff in all aspects. Predjudicial visions are bitter and not worth the effort to be recognized as an opinion. Dick you should watch it with a more open heart and mind, don't just look for the eye candy which makes a films content, look for what's more important, and understand it. They may not be American, but the Japanese have cornered the market lately for some of the most breath taking and down right gritty film making to date. Which is why spending 25,000,000 is just what the Doctor ordered. You heard right, 25,000,000 to make this film. Now you tell me, was it worth it? or was it worth it because American actors weren't in it?

As I sit here, I find myself laughing at certain moments in this film. Go and see this film.<br /><br />If you've ever been clubbing, go and see this film.<br /><br />If you've ever wanted to go clubbing, go and see this film.<br /><br />My bet is that the film was borne from an idea whilst out clubbing and this is the product of that one-in-a-million chance that someone remembered it in the morning and had the application to follow it through.<br /><br />In summary then, go and see this film.<br /><br />

I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film. <br /><br />The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story. <br /><br />The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons.

Okay, that was a pretty damn good episode. Much better than the credit it receives.<br /><br />The camera work is splendid. Best yet. I love that final shot. The atmosphere is fantastic, the costumes are great and the guest cast (minus the helpless victims) is strong. <br /><br />What I don't like about this episode is that many things that are left unexplained. why does it change sex? what's the purpose? and they're aliens? what kind? why were they never shown again in the later mythology?<br /><br />I'm giving this episode a high THREE stars. One of my favorites yet, but the plot holes bother me. Still... not gonna let it ruin my entertainment.

this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.<br /><br />i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.<br /><br />if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.

The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.<br /><br />Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history… if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name –Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.<br /><br />Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.

I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.<br /><br />This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.<br /><br />Right, you say. Another one of "those". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way "hollywoody". It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his "tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.<br /><br />The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.<br /><br />I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the "official" after-school specials put together.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.<br /><br />All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see.

I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.

Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.<br /><br />If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.<br /><br />The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.<br /><br />During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.<br /><br />This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.<br /><br />It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.

*Spoiler warning*<br /><br />First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.<br /><br />The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone. <br /><br />She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps. <br /><br />Her friends are unbelievably nasty.<br /><br />The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?<br /><br />A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?

This film is a fun little private eye detective story like they aren't made any more. It's all there: Tom Conway is the suave detective called The Falcon, Goldie Locke (what's in a name) is his wisecracking bumbling sidekick, Louisa Braganza is the damsel in distress, and of course there are the damsels maid, the professor with the secret formula, the bad guy that wants the formula, and the police inspector who's after The Falcon. There is a murder, and The Falcon gets implicated. The scenery is night clubs, expensive hotel rooms, a luxury train, the suburbs, and beautiful cars. Go watch this little gem when you see it pass by on afternoon TV!

Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!<br /><br />I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.<br /><br />This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.<br /><br />I highly recommend it.

I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead.

I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.<br /><br />

As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with "Tart", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.<br /><br />It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's "Lawn Dogs" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.<br /><br />"Tart" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it.

Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).<br /><br />AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!

A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin; maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel we are compelled to endure year after year.<br /><br />It's the story of a man who is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison, trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers, and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife. <br /><br />Even if you didn't like the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy, swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine.<br /><br />I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits, fedoras, or jazz.

Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.<br /><br />A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.<br /><br />I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.<br /><br />This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.<br /><br />Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.

Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance between the tragic and the down-to-earth. <br /><br />The music and lyrics of the cabaret/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it ís mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy. <br /><br />London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger. <br /><br />Maybe the end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in all this is a great romantic story.

I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.<br /><br />To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain! <br /><br />Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot! <br /><br />My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head/10

There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at.

The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, "Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?"<br /><br />Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.<br /><br />The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies.

Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch: <br /><br />Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)

I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.<br /><br />Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done.

I've seen this programme a few times and the more a see of it, the less I like it. Jamie Lynn Spears was approached to do this because of the fact that she is Britney's sister and I'm sorry to say that that in the show is obvious. They've created the character Zoey to be everything people want to believe Jamie Lynn is, clever, original, smart, pretty, popular etc. The characters around her are only there to make her look better, by being smarter then them, more popular than them, more wanted by boys then them. There is nothing original about this and it's poured with money, so every kid there has the coolest of fashions and stuff. I also have to say, for a 13 year old girl (or however old she is, can't be much older) she wears very mature clothing, those short skirts are too short, it makes young people want to wear them, and all that make-up, this adds to the rising problems of why young girls get into so much trouble. The only thing I will say is that the opening credits are sung by Jamie Lynn and, given her age, isn't bad at all, much better than her sister anyway when it comes to vocal ability. Sorry, it's too mature and yet too dumbed down. It's poorly acted with predictable story lines and there is far too much stereotyping going on too.