Datasets:

dipanjanS

/

imdb_sentiment_finetune_dataset

like 0

What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.<br /><br />Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre "HALT!", and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.<br /><br />So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as "you know its a shame you're my sister" he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.<br /><br />So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred "the hammer" Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not.

I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.<br /><br />There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.<br /><br />When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.<br /><br />If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.

This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."<br /><br />There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.<br /><br />The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.<br /><br />Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.

If you are interested in learning more about this sort of thing happening in modern civilization, there is an excellent book called "Outlaw Seas" or "The Outlaw Sea", and it describes, in story after story, how these things do happen. The lawlessness of the high seas is a reality for a number of reasons. One, many of the world's freighters are of questionable registry (nationality) and it's difficult to impossible to enforce international laws when the ships owners don't have an office in a real country. Two, many ship lines employ crews from dirt poor third world countries. The crews are often (like illegal immigrant workers) threatened and bullied into complying with questionable or illegal practices. Three, there is often a language barrier, not only between the officers and the crew, but also between the crew members themselves. The crew are rewarded for their compliance and their silence. Four, once committing an illegal act, the ships are able to hide in plain sight with little more than a fresh coat of paint. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.<br /><br />Horrifying story, excellent movie. Does anyone else notice how HBO seems to make the best and most important movies? Hollywood has trouble releasing enough Oscar worthy movies in any given year, so that several of the top 5 contenders usually come from Britain. Jerry Bruckheimer = the end of quality cinema.<br /><br />I loved the thoroughly evil performance by Sean Pertwee. I also, as usual, loved Omar Epps.

Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.<br /><br />I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like "fighter", "wizard", "hit point", "level", "character", "flaming hand", "Chaotic Evil".<br /><br />What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.

In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.

This is the only thing I will be able to look back on from the year 2006 and say now that rocked. It rocked hard, and yet it also rocked tasty. Mr.MEATLOAF added a nice little touch to this dish of a film before the opening credits even rolled. Now that tells you something, this filmed rocked even before it STARTED! Now I don't want to give to much away or be a "spoiler" but this movie ROCKED! If you have heard the new album and thought to yourself "this seems a bit substandard Tenacious material,it is like I a merely playing badminton with Satan, what gives?" Then this movie will elevate your appreciation for the music and you will marvel at this steamy satanic masterpiece. For those who would want it better do not know what they want,because better would no longer be the D. This movie is the D period.!So venture if you dare to the local viewing theater if you to want to have your socks rocked.

You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.<br /><br />Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.<br /><br />But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.<br /><br />The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.<br /><br />It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.<br /><br />It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.

I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.<br /><br />The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a "bad day"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.<br /><br />If this was supposed to be a "Crash" clone, it's a complete failure.

A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.<br /><br />My Grade: A-

I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: <br /><br />1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " <br /><br />2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won <br /><br />Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers <br /><br />Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves <br /><br />Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category <br /><br />Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors <br /><br />Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn <br /><br />Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night <br /><br />Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR <br /><br />Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off <br /><br />What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts

While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.<br /><br />I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.<br /><br />You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.<br /><br />Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.<br /><br />*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:<br /><br />- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :<br /><br />what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.<br /><br />interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me!

Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his "I love what I know" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. "You messin' wit private stock." This is scriptwriting folks.<br /><br />I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.<br /><br />DIE Jeter, DIE!!!

A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is.

I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love

The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to<br /><br />rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,<br /><br />and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of<br /><br />everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real<br /><br />quickly.

This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.

I like Ghost stories. Good ghost stories of bumps in the night, voices that cannot be explained. Now I've see many of them. As special efx have a ever more grip on todays films, some times to find a real gem , you gotta turn the clock back to the time when the writers and directors really had to use their heads to create really good ghost stories. Now this one, very rare , pilot episode for the TV series Ghost Story called " The New House " was one of the most scariest films I ever saw. It was on once in 1972,...I was only 9,..but nothing since then even compared to it. With all the remake going on in Hollywood, some one should do this one " as is " with no more special efx than the original. This episode was down right creepy as hell. I'm lucky to find it finally on DVD today and very rare and hard to find. The only other 2 Ghost Stories to even come close was the ORIGINAL " The Haunting " and George C. Scott in " The Changling " . Wish someone would do more ghost stories like these.

Okay, I've watched this movie twice now, I have researched it heavily on the net, I have asked several people on there opinions. I have even gone to the length of reading the original Sheridan Lafanu Classic 'Carmilla', a book that this movie is supposed to be based on. I feel that the best way to review this movie is to describe a game to play whilst watching it. As the plot of the movie doesn't seem to make any sense at all, here is the plot of the book.<br /><br />Laura lives in a castle in Syberia with her Father, Mr De Lafontaine. They carry on with their lives blissfully and peacefully. One day they get a letter from the 'General' a man who has made it his mission in life to avenge his daughters death. He makes claims of supernatural powers being at work, and explains that he will visit them soon. Meanwhile, a chance encounter with a strange woman results in the Lafontaines looking after her Daughter, Carmilla, for several months. Soon Laura starts to be overwhelmed by strange dreams, and begins to come down with a strange illness. Who is this mysterious Carmilla? And just what has she to do with Laura's condition, and the General?<br /><br />I have invented this game and would like as many people as possible to play it, and let me know what their results are. I even have a catchy name, and would have a jingle too, but I can't be bothered with that. It's called the "this movie doesn't make any sense" game.<br /><br />All you have to do is, whilst watching the movie, try to come up with a complete plot that explains what is happening. I mean complete, all questions answered, everything makes sense, absolutely complete.<br /><br />It will have to answer such questions as ... <br /><br />* Why can vampires walk around in day light?<br /><br />* Why are they all lesbians?<br /><br />* Why is a girl called Bob? and why does she shoot herself?<br /><br />* When is the movie a dream and when is it real?<br /><br />* Why does killing zombies appear to be an accepted part of life that doesn't make anyone bat an eyelid?<br /><br />* Why does Travis Fontaine spot and run down a zombie without slowing down whilst driving his car, yet when faced with a woman with an obvious hostage in the back of her car, accept the excuse that she is a zombie too?<br /><br />* And why does he then let a girl, which he later openly reveals that he knows is the head vampire, drive with him in his car?<br /><br />* And then let her drive off, alone with his daughter in a stolen car?<br /><br />What the hell is the asylum scene all about?<br /><br />* What the hell is the green goo all about?<br /><br />* Why does the head vampire suddenly start dressing like a nurse?<br /><br />* Why are there never any vampires fighting Zombies?<br /><br />* What is the significance of the necklace? what is it made of? why does it kill vampires? and how does Jenna know that?<br /><br />In fact sod it, it's just as much fun trying to come up with as many questions about this movie too.<br /><br />I have my plot, and I have to admit it is not quite there, but it is a pretty good effort.<br /><br />In Conclusion<br /><br />'Vampires vs Zombies' has no moment in it where there are actually Vampires fighting Zombies. Everyone in the movie seems to know exactly what is going on, yet they seem very reluctant to let the audience in on this. And somehow it is based on a classic 19th century horror novel. How? Why? What the hell is going on?

This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.<br /><br />Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!<br /><br />Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.<br /><br />If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.<br /><br />This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.<br /><br />IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.<br /><br />Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.<br /><br />Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.<br /><br />Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.<br /><br />Don't say you weren't warned.

This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny – it said „comedy" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny – and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.<br /><br />Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the „mechanics", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships – if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.<br /><br />The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!

This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.

First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!<br /><br />How could it fail?<br /><br />There may be spoilers within.<br /><br />First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.<br /><br />And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces. <br /><br />You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances. <br /><br />Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book. <br /><br />And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more. <br /><br />And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything. <br /><br />I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.

This film is so old I never realized how young looking Ray Milland looked in 1936, I remember him playing in a great film, "Lost Weekend". Ray plays the role of Michael Stuart, who is a very rich banker. There are three girls in this picture who are not very happy about their father and mother separating and they find out their father is going to get married to a young blonde who is a gold digger only looking for a rich sugar daddy. They hire a man to pose as a very rich Count, his name is Count Ariszted, (Misha Auer) who is drunk all the time and is penniless and gives plenty of comic laughs throughout the picture. Deanna Durbin, (Penny Craig) surprised everyone when she was booked in a police station and told the chief of police that she was an opera star and then Penny starts singing with the most fantastic soprano voice I have every heard, the entire police department and convicts started applauding, which was a very entertaining and enjoyable scene from this film. This is Deanna Durbin's first film debut and she became an instant success over night and went on to become a great movie star with Universal Studios after leaving MGM.

I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.<br /><br />After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.<br /><br />Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.<br /><br />Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.<br /><br />Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.<br /><br />Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.<br /><br />We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.<br /><br />The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww! <br /><br />The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.<br /><br />What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.<br /><br />Sorry Jane.

If you like Sci-Fi, Monsters, and Ancient Legends, then you will love this movie!! <br /><br />The Special Effects are by far the best I have seen since Juarassic Park hit the big screen years ago. While the acting may have been a little less than desirable, the story line and effects adequately compensated for it.<br /><br />I wish now I had seen this at the movies on a theater screen instead of our 42 inch big screen TV.<br /><br />If you like non-stop action, awesome visuals, and taste for myth and lore....you have to see this movie!!

A rather silly little film you just may love.<br /><br />Although rather corny and cliché at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy "knowing yours is the best team."<br /><br />Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper "Be a Pepper" commercials and before his major 1981 hit "American Werewolf in London". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.<br /><br />Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love.

This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.

I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.<br /><br />While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).

What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.<br /><br />As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them "mailed" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.<br /><br />I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.<br /><br />The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots "conclusion" or "answer" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the "meaning of life" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.<br /><br />No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.<br /><br />****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous "question" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...<br /><br />YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM.

Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10.

A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.<br /><br />The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. <br /><br />4/10

Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.

In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.<br /><br />1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.<br /><br />Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.<br /><br />However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.<br /><br />It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.<br /><br />8/10

Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.

You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.<br /><br />This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.<br /><br />Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.<br /><br />The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James.

This is an excellent film about the characters in a adult swimming class, their problems, relationships and interactions with each other. It should have managed a wider distribution as it's much better than similar films from major studios out at the same time.<br /><br />The swimming instructor is an almost-Olympian, reduced to teaching adults basic lessons, and often the target of horndogging from his female students. He attempts, more or less, to fend them off, with varying results.<br /><br />The students characters are mainstream U.S.A; teachers, policemen, college students and retired people, all of whom haven't learned to swim for some reason. The movie covers their relationships, including friends, relatives and romantic conquests as they go through the class. Several subplots provide amusing fodder, including a teacher going through a divorce, some high school students making a documentary, and a girl who is only in the class to meet guys.<br /><br />This is a good date movie, or just one to watch when you're in the mood for a romantic drama with overtones of reality.

This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.

I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10.

EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.<br /><br />Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.<br /><br />On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.<br /><br />Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner.

This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.

Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.

Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the "weird" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.<br /><br />Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.<br /><br />Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.<br /><br />Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.<br /><br />What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.<br /><br />But hey, at least the set's pretty.

I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. <br /><br />It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. <br /><br />What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. <br /><br />This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.

First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.<br /><br />I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.<br /><br />If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.

This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.<br /><br />The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining <br /><br />The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)<br /><br />If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning

Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.

i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his acting the Best.<br /><br />Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit.<br /><br />However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also.<br /><br />I am one of those people who love to see artists make it.<br /><br />B.S.

I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...

Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)

I was drawn to "Friends" by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called "Seasons", then I found the Elton John song "Friends" thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of "Friends" came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. "The Graduate" "Easy Rider") now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with "Last Tango in Paris". The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little "aged" now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. "Friends" is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today.

During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of "The Well"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of "The Blair Witch Project" but this one IS based on REAL events!

I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.<br /><br />i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:<br /><br />American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.<br /><br />why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore! <br /><br />watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...

Mom should really be given a different title to distinguish it from all the other movies out there called Mom or with the word Mom in the title.<br /><br />This is a vastly superior zombie movie to so much of the rubbish that gets churned out time after time and all end up much the same as every other zombie movie out there.<br /><br />It is so different and refreshing it almost defies categorisation.<br /><br />The kind old lady who takes in a creepy lodger, who just happens to be a flesh eater, who then infects the old lady who also turns into a flesh eating zombie, or ghoul, quite which exactly is not defined.<br /><br />There is pathos in the story as her son realises what she has become and while at first horrified, attempts to help her by supplying 'food'. (I shall say no more about that, for fear of inserting a spoiler!) It is one of those 'quiet' movies as opposed to guns blasting, explosions raging, car chases, etc boring etc that makes so many movies all the same rubbish, but still with enough gory moments to satisfy horror fans, whilst also inserting sadness into the story, along with nice touches of humour as opposed to downright silliness of some so-called 'horror' movies.<br /><br />There is a particularly nice atmospheric shot at the beginning of the film, where the old lady is sitting alone in her room with only her Christmas tree for company and looks so 'innocent', but, what she becomes!! Oh my! <br /><br />A gem of a movie and even if not your thing, should at least be viewed if only once by any true horror fan.

Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful, hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra. They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say a "shave"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well. Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji), changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story.<br /><br />This is a film where the horror comes not simply out of "oh, ghost, ah", but out of the total dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the "evidence" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused, etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start, manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry: Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly atmospheric.<br /><br />While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end, there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at stake.<br /><br />And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp (sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this (i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered.

I am not a big music video fan. I think music videos take away personal feelings about a particular song.. Any song. In other words , creative thinking goes out the window. Likewise, Personal feelings aside about MJ, toss aside. This was the best music video of alltime. Simply wonderful. It was a movie. Yes folks it was. Brilliant! You had awesome acting, awesome choreography, and awesome singing. This was spectacular. Simply a plot line of a beautiful young lady dating a man , but was he a man or something sinister. Vincent Price did his thing adding to the song and video. MJ was MJ , enough said about that. This song was to video , what Jaguars are for cars. Top of the line, PERFECTO. What was even better about this was ,that we got the real MJ without the thousand facelifts. Though ironically enough, there was more than enough makeup and costumes to go around. Folks go to Youtube. Take 14 mins. out of your life and see for yourself what a wonderful work of art this particular video really is.

Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.<br /><br />Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.<br /><br />It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.<br /><br />So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?<br /><br />Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.<br /><br />I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.<br /><br />At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.<br /><br />3/10

The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best.<br /><br />Maybe if Otto Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are conspiring against him.<br /><br />First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing, especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just to keep him around.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you shaken.<br /><br />Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody, she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career. <br /><br />Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl.<br /><br />Elmer Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring up your family.

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.<br /><br />I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.<br /><br />Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.<br /><br />If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.

Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...<br /><br />I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.

An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat.

Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.<br /><br />it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.

What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.<br /><br />The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.

This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.<br /><br />As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!<br /><br />This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.<br /><br />In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).<br /><br />Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!

When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.<br /><br />If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do.

One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a "cold case"-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.<br /><br />Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem.

I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.<br /><br />I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.<br /><br />I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.<br /><br />I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.<br /><br />I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.<br /><br />This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.

I like this movie because it is a fine work of cinema, made by people who care enough to make it art and not just home movies. It is filled with Super-surfer Greg Noll's home movies, and a boatload of amateur video from others who align themselves with his 50-year passion. Nevertheless, it has been expanded to the degree that it approaches aesthetic glory. It is filled with artistic talent, and athletic talent, however trivial you might think surfing to be athletic. Surfers are not astronauts nor test-pilots. Nor are they surgeons(perhaps) or Ph.d's(again, perhaps). It believes in the quest of the surfer. It believes in the beauty of human goofiness. It believes in the great gift of peace, which comes from the cessation of war. Surfers celebrate the cessation of war on the north beach of an Hawaiian island attacked by Japanese zeroes fifteen years before. It celebrates the down-time of a country which fought a cold war-instead of a hot-war - with the Russian socialists. Surfing is the ultimate narcissism. It is dangerous, but only slightly historical. I suspect Alexander the Great would not be celebrated for his surfing technique. He had to go out and conquer a few dozen countries to get the favorable press he has received. This movie has no military heroes. It has no guns. The only beach-head surfers conquer has a beer-stand and and a surfboard shop. This is not a problem. Peace is not desperate. It is the joy of exhalation.

I had a hard time staying awake for the two hour opening episode. It was dumbed down to such an extent, I doubt if I learned a single thing. The graphics were rudimentary. Any small idea was repeated ad nauseum. Contrast this to the Cosmos series hosted by Carl Sagan. That had a good musical theme. There was NO music coming from these infernal 10-dimensional Strings.

Although the plot of this film is a bit far-fetched, it is worth seeing just for the performances of Michaels Caine and Gambon. The latter delivers a truly wonderful Dublin accent. Caine hams it up...which is exactly what the character he is playing should do. Entertaining and fun, this is a hour and a half of easy watching.

This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.

When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show "Barney" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about "imagination...."(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be "supposudly" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of "hee-hee-hee" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.<br /><br />And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.

Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.<br /><br />McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume. <br /><br />Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.<br /><br />The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation. <br /><br />This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.<br /><br />Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey.

This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of "Pre-Code" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!! <br /><br />The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).<br /><br />Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.<br /><br />But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.<br /><br />So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.

I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be pretty decent as far as B-list horror/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank/truck hybrid decides to play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase/suspense scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the horror/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.

(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details) <br /><br />IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.<br /><br />The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.<br /><br />I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.

I shall begin with a disclaimer: This movie is NOT recommended for anyone who lack interest or have never played FF7 the game before watching. The movie relies on the audience's knowledge of each character in the game to convey story plot elements. And it does so very subtly. Do your homework before watching this wonderful piece of CG film and I promise it'll be that much better.<br /><br />With that in mind, this film has some of the most spectacular CG sequences I have ever witnessed. The whole experience felt like an extra long FMV sequence from the game, on steroids. Yeah. The attention to detail in each scene, especially in the heavy action oriented ones, is so impeccable it left me with a sense of awe.<br /><br />I believe the soundtrack is simplified so as to help the audience focus on the animation quality more than the music. Again, for those who are familiar with the FF7 story and background, the music should not surprise anyone (although the timing and placement of each soundtrack from the original accompany each scene and mood to the point where the music simply enhances the animation).<br /><br />Once again, I myself having only played through FF7 once, thoroughly enjoyed this piece of art from Square Enix. And that is the feel in most scenes, choreographed and organized. Like a dance.<br /><br />In short, if you enjoyed the music or the game Final Fantasy 7, this film will blow you out of the water. If you're in the unfortunate majority who has not experienced the goodness known as FF7 on Playstation or PC, doing so before watching the movie will allow for an exponentially greater experience.<br /><br />Finally, I just want to make a note of the quality in animating this film. Characters move with fluidity. Each scene background comes to life and tells its own story. For those who criticize the thinness and dependency of the story plot, I urge you to reexamine the animation. Facial reactions, subtle clues that bring about another level of entertainment above the typical narration method of story plot delivery.<br /><br />Square Enix and the great Tetsuya Nomura has set a new bar for quality animation and storytelling. Advent Children has ushered in a new era for CG animations, allowing the subtleties that lie in each character to speak volumes in and of themselves.<br /><br />Thanks Square Enix. The wait was well worth it.

This is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant "galaxy" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be "It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances." The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going "Ta-Da!!!!" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself ("enemies of freedom"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.

If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.<br /><br />The title of the movie "Phase IV" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but "Phase I" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach "Phase IV" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: "Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.<br /><br />The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me.

Joseph Brady and Clarence Doolittle are two sailors, who have a four-day shore leave in Hollywood.Joe knows everything about girls and can't wait to see Lola, while Clarence is shyer and needs some advice from his buddy on how to meet girls.They then run into a little boy, Donald Martin, who has ran away in order to join the navy.They take him home and meet his beautiful aunt Susan, who wants to be a singer.Clarence wants Susie to be his girl, but his shyness gets in the way.But he doesn't feel shy with a waitress, who comes from Brooklyn, like he does.Soon Joe notices he's in love with Susie.The boys are in a fix when they lie to Susie on meeting with a big time music producer they don't even know.As they are in a fix with their feelings.George Sidney's Anchors Aweigh (1945) is a great musical comedy.Gene Kelly is top-notch, once again, in his singing and dancing routines.Frank Sinatra is terrific as the shy guy from Brooklyn.Shy isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Frank Sinatra, but he plays his part well.Kathryn Grayson is fantastic as Susan Abbott.We sadly lost this gifted actress and operatic soprano singer last month at the age of 88.The 9-year old Dean Stockwell does amazing job as the little fellow wanting to become a sailor.Jose Iturbi does great job performing himself.It's magic what he does with the piano.Edgar Kennedy plays Chief of police station.Sara Berner is the voice of Jerry Mouse.There's a lot of great stuff in this movie and some fantastic singing and dancing numbers.Just look at Kelly and Sinatra performing "We Hate to Leave".It's so energetic."If You Knew Susie (Like I Know Susie)" is quite funny.It's a nice moment when Frank sings Brahms' Lullaby to little Dean Stockwell.It's lovely to listen to Grayson singing the tango "Jealousy" .The most memorable sequence is the one that takes into the animated fantasy world, and there Gene sings and dances with Jerry Mouse.Also Tom Cat is seen there as the butler.They originally asked Mickey Mouse but he refused.The movie was nominated for five Oscars but Georgie Stoll got one for Original Music Score.Anchors Aweigh is some high class entertainment.

From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!

Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.<br /><br />This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.<br /><br />Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.

Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.

One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out.

While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.<br /><br />The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.<br /><br />I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie.

this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....

I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this "comedy" has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!

This movie is a riot. I cannot remember the last time I had such a great time at the movies. I've seen a few good comedies in my time and usually they are pretty funny. But this one is wall to wall great lines. I think Best in Show is the last movie that I laughed so hard and so much in. The movie was non-stop until the end when they did the 5 minutes of sentimental plot clean up. Other than that it's a constant barrage of one liners and goofy situations. I'd like to see it again before it leaves the theater because this is like the Zucker movies where you don't get all the jokes the first time around. You have to see it two or three times to get it all in.<br /><br />As far as the actual film goes, it could have used a better edit, it's choppy at times but we have to be forgiving for that. All the characters are great. It's not like an Adam Sandler movie where he tries to be funny and everyone else suffers around him and is the butt of the joke. I think I will remember all the main characters for years to come because they are all so likable. No victims in this movie. Also, thank God they got a 45 year old actress to play his girlfriend. Catherine Keener plays her and she is a sweetheart in this film. You just wish that women like her really existed. She's not a "10" like some of the other leading ladies but somehow her smile is warmer than Julia Roberts overdone overbite.<br /><br />If you see the trailer for this film you may not think too highly of it. I assure you, the trailer does not do it justice. They do not give away all the good jokes. Just some of the mediocre ones.<br /><br />Oh and one more thing. I hope critics put this on their top ten list. Many of them complain that comedies don't get the recognition they deserve and then at the end of the year they don't put it on their list. This means you Ebert!!!

A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.<br /><br />The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: "I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin." The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.<br /><br />It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible "depth" to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.<br /><br />I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.<br /><br />Oops.

It's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.<br /><br />I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.<br /><br />I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.<br /><br />I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter.

Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me.

This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.

In an alternate 1950s, where an outbreak of the undead (caused by a mysterious 'space-dust') has been contained through the use of special electronic collars, a young loner, Timmy, finds a friend in Fido (Billy Connelly), his family's recently acquired domesticated zombie.<br /><br />Fido quickly becomes a surrogate father to Timmy, whose real dad is unable to adequately express his love for his son (or for his hot-to-trot wife, played by the gorgeous Carrie-Anne Moss) having been psychologically scarred as a child (when he was forced to shoot his own father, who tried to eat him!).<br /><br />Timmy runs into a spot of bother, however, when his putrid pal's collar goes on the blink, and he attacks and kills an elderly neighbour. With the authorities on Fido's trail, trouble brewing with a pair of local bullies, and his mother forming a bond with their undead house-help, will Timmy be able to hold on to his new found friend?<br /><br />A refreshing take on the whole zombie schtick, Fido is a thoroughly entertaining, deliciously dark comedy that should appeal to anyone with a slightly twisted sense of humour. Taking the Romero zombie-verse and transplanting it into 1950s small town America is a stroke of genius, and the result is simply one of the most original films to tackle the whole 'reanimated dead' theme that I have seen.<br /><br />Connelly's Fido is a cinematic zombie worthy of inclusion in the Undead Movie Hall of Fame, along with Day Of The Dead's Bub, and Return Of The Living Dead's Tarman; it is not often I feel empathy for a walking corpse, but The Big Yin's performance is so fine that I actually found myself rooting for the big blue bag of pus! The rest of the cast also give commendable performances, with young K'Sun Ray (as Timmy) and Ms.Moss deserving special mentions—Ray, because, for one so young, he puts in a particularly assured turn, and Moss because she is so bloody yummy!<br /><br />This is the third zombie film that I have watched this week (the others being the somewhat disappointing Planet Terror and the rather fun Flight Of The Living Dead), and, to my surprise, it is also the best. Director Andrew Currie has given fans of the genre something truly original to treasure and is a talent to be watched in the future.<br /><br />8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.

An extremely down-to-earth, well made and acted "Rodeo" Western. No gussied up stars needed here as all cast members were regular people telling a real life story about a rodeo hustler and his entourage in the 60's and 70's West. But hats off particularly to Slim Pickens for giving what I think was his signature performance, especially given the fact that he had been a rodeo clown in real life. His role went far beyond the mere clown role as he deeply dealt with all the "ups and downs" of the hard-nosed rodeo life and the psychological devastation that so frequently surrounds such a life style. He and Mr. Coburn teamed up extremely well as partners, not only on the circuit itself, but also in the real world outside the corral. Also, check out Anne Archer as Coburn's Native American love interest in the latter part of the movie. Must have been one of her first roles. <br /><br />Not as flashy, perhaps, as "Junior Bonner", but equally heart rendering and impacting in its portrayal. Thanks to the Encore Western Channel for showing this true grit of an under-rated movie from time to time.

Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.

"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.<br /><br />Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.<br /><br />Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...<br /><br />Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.<br /><br />No. Really.<br /><br />This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?<br /><br />If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.<br /><br />If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.

First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.

This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.<br /><br />The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny.

I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.<br /><br />I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".<br /><br />I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.<br /><br />Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.

Such a joyous world has been created for us in Pixar's A Bug's Life; we're immersed in a universe which could only be documented this enjoyably on film, but more precisely a universe which could only be documented through the world of animation. For those who have forgotten what a plentiful and exuberant world animation can offer – when it's in the right hands that is – A Bug's Life is a warm reminder. We walk out of the film with an equally-warm feeling, and a sense of satisfaction derivative of only high-calibre film productions.<br /><br />It is only Pixar's second animated feature. The sub-group of Disney made their spectacular debut and perhaps entirely inadvertent mark on the film world three years prior in 1995, with their landmark movie Toy Story. It was a movie which defied convention, re-invented and breathed new life into animation and defined a whole new level of excellence. Now, they return with their sophomore effort which, to be honest, draws a creeping sense of cynicism in us all prior to seeing the film.<br /><br />After all, it's a film about ants. Well, all walks of the insect and bug world are covered in A Bug's Life, but it is the ant which is the focal point in this film, as humans are the focal point in dramas, romances and so on. How can such an insignificant species of animal such as an ant act as the protagonist of a movie, let alone provide the entire premise of a feature film? Surely they jest. However, we forget that in Toy Story, a bunch of toy-box items were able to become the grandest, most inspiring and lovable bunch of animated heroes and villains ever concocted. The guys at Pixar manage to pull off the same feat, and manage to turn a bunch of dirty and miniscule bugs into the most endearing and pleasant gang of vermin you'll probably ever encounter.<br /><br />Not only are they all entirely amiable and likable – there isn't an unpleasant character in sight; even the villains are riveting characters – but they're colourful, they're eclectic, and they're idiosyncratic. And the array of characters is also gargantuan for lack of a better term, only adding the rich layers of distinctiveness already plastered onto A Bug's Life from the beginning. We shall start with our main character, and our hero. His name is Flik (David Foley), and his character is rather generic to say the least. Out of the thousands of faithful and obedient worker ants residing on the lush, beautiful Ant Island, he is the one considered the 'black sheep' of the clan, as seen in the opening moments of the movie when he inadvertently destroys the season's harvest with his antics.<br /><br />The problem arises in the fact that the ants' harvest is for a bunch of greedy grasshoppers led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey), who are eager to continue to assert their wrath and autocracy amongst the puny little ants; when they show up to Ant Island for their annual banquet and see that their offering is gone, they go insane, for lack of a better term. Hopper offers a proposition to save the ants from total extinction at his pack's hands; however, it's a negotiation which is simply impossible to fulfil. The cogs and clockwork in Flik's mind run at full steam now despite his guilt and shame, and he offers to leave Ant Island in search of some mighty bug warriors who can come to the colony's rescue and fight off Hopper and the grasshoppers.<br /><br />If you think about it, A Bug's Life bears some heavy resemblance to the plot line's of Akira Kurosawa's classic Seven Samurai, or the American remake The Magnificent Seven, in which a village of hapless but good-hearted folk are threatened by malevolent and wicked enemies – one lone village-dweller goes in search for help in the big city, finds it and returns to the colony to drive off evil. In A Bug's Life, the help comes in the form of a down-and-out circus troupe who is mistakenly perceived by Flik as warriors in a bar-room brawl.<br /><br />Much amusement comes out of these scenes, and much amusement comes out of these circus troupe bugs. Among them are an erudite stick insect (David Hyde Pierce), a side-splitting obese German caterpillar by the name of Heimlich and a quasi-femme fatale ladybug who's in fact a gritty and masculine ladybug (Dennis Hopper). It's exceedingly enjoyable watching these bugs on-screen, as it is watching the bugs and the insects interact on-screen, as is the entire movie collectively.<br /><br />As I've said, much amusement and mirth comes out of their characters and joyous interactions with one another, which give way to a bevy of hilarious lines, wonderfully suspenseful and riveting situations and overall a dazzling movie. What makes A Bug's Life even better is that the film isn't restricted simply to children as many may perceive it to be, although children would indeed find more entertainment out of this film – the clichéd kid-friendly situations are a bit more abundant than we'd like. However, it's easy to ignore this fault, and it's incredulously easy to enjoy this film.<br /><br />Although A Bug's Life may not reach the dizzying and landmark standards set by its predecessor, this is still a superb movie, and the start of something promising here. Pixar have proved that they're not just a one-hit wonder, but instead a much-gifted and talented group of film artists in Hollywood. They raise the bar endlessly, and when someone always manages to top their standards, it's only always by themselves. What more is there to say about A Bug's Life other than: see it; it's not quite the best which we've seen from the folks at Emeryville, California, but this beats out the lot of its year – and I'll be damned if this isn't the best animated feature of 1998.<br /><br />8.5/10