Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.<br /><br />In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.

Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that...

A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead.

I watched the version with pathetic American over-dubs, maybe this made it much worse, but from what I could make out the film was pretty bad anyway. It seemed low budget. The visuals reminded me of a second rate TV movie, random white dog substituted for Dogmatix, embarrassing 60's BBC costumes, etc. Mainly though, I feel like the characters in the movie did not behave anything like the characters in the comic, and as a result I never felt willing to even try to forgive the poor look of the film. It is always going to be hard to capture the feel of the comics in a film without using animation, and I didn't feel this attempt was worth it ultimately.

I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states – we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it.

Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film "is what it is." And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an "and" and an "&." It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. "Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table" WAIT! "Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about "badassdom." Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.

I have to say when it comes to Book to Movie Adaptations the BBC rarely lets me down. Now regarding this mini-series. I love the Starling Novel, it's by far the best murder/mystery I've ever read. The Mini-series, it defiantly made my day when I saw it. The primary story was kept near perfectly intact. The characters match the ones to the novel very well, the personalities and mannerisms were spot on for Red and Jez. I thought Duncan was done very well as was Kate, Eric came off as too much of a simplistic character, he had a little more depth in the book, but they also altered his sub-story so that may have had to deal with it. Of course there are changes, but most are cosmetic, but some I found disappointment in, the sub-story with Eric murder charge was changed and that changed the whole dynamic between Red and Eric for the movie, and they cut out the Triathalon training Jez was doing. Some of the other events in the book are changed to be viewer friendly. Over all if you liked the book, you will like this, if you like the mini-series, then you'll love the book. I must say, this is the most accurate Book to Movie adaptation I've seen.

This has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The idea of a typical family leaving everything behind to live in the wilderness. When mom and dad both lose there jobs, not to mention they have green slime in their bathtub. They decide it's in their families best interest to move to Oregon. Once there everything goes wrong. An interesting cast of characters compliment this movie. Including a young Molly Ringwald,this a movie I would definetly recommend.

Just utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.

This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. <br /><br />There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. <br /><br />Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.

Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like "The Seven-Ups", or its kindred spirit, "The French Connection", always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, "This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.". A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time.

Seems like some of the previous reviewers has seen another movie than what i saw earlier tonight... Actually, this movie is the reason why i registered at IMDb. Sure Bobbie Phillips can "fight" and for that i give this movie a 2, but the rest of this movie is just pure crap... The acting is bad, the plot is bad, the camera angles are bad, and the effects are bad. Sure the actors are in physical good shape, but they cannot act! Sometimes i enjoy watching bad movies for the laugh, but this movie had no charm and after i saw this movie i was filled with regrets for seeing it. Sure, if you would like to see mediocre fighting without anything else then this movie is for you. If not then stay away from this film! PS: Sorry for any spelling mistakes... i am just tired as a cause of this movie!

There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.<br /><br />So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end.

I just read the comments of TomReynolds2004 and feel I have to jump in here. I understand he doesn't like the film, but his reasons are not evident. My feeling regarding this film is that it is not afraid to travel the darker roads of loneliness, failure, disappointment and sorrow. Each of these two people, as portrayed, have plenty of reasons to be bitter and angry, yet find tenderness and comfort in each the other. Only great acting could make this work without becoming an emotional quagmire, sentimental and sappy. I really became interested in these people because of their overwhelming humanity given to them by such strong performances. I have every reason to dislike Jane Fonda for her Vietnam era actions, but personal feelings apart, she is fabulous in this role. Robert DeNiro is superb as a man whose intelligence and goodness begins to fail him in a world indifferent to his abilities. This is the first I have seen DeNiro using tenderness rather than toughness to sell a character and I really like it. This film was a big surprise when I first viewed it and I look forward to seeing it again.

Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.

I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.

Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.

I just came back from the Late-night cinema and it was indeed a silent way out as most of the audience pondered though the real-life black & white images of the partition,the freedom movement,etc which was very much reminiscent of the lives' our forefathers faced! Amidst this backdrop,mind you,there was no tel/fax/internet in those times but for the very voice of Truth & Non-violence, the cinematography infused some spirit of stark reality of adversity amidst the strict Raj.<br /><br />Gandhi shown as a hardworking Attorney in South Africa,who stood for his basic ideologies and gave every degree of conviction to spread awareness of the same with humility and sainthood which to the uttered speech of general Smut was shown as a nice farewell on screen.It had the best drafted speech with a subtle humour & a veiled threat to the British raj in India!There was a nice remark when he said we pray in silence to the British in India now that Gandhi,the politician is set for India(towards sainthood).<br /><br />The very backdrop of a big family with many kids needs the mention of an obvious divided attention and love which had to cast it's spell on the unfortunate kid's psyche who was left alone to aspire for unrealistic ambitions.Little did Harilal knew about his aptitude and he gets emotionally carried away with small pleasures in life and fails in front of the huge idol of his father.He tries to do away from mentor-ship which is the basis of any success which had to be seen by those fortunate neighbours in the streets of Gandhi's residence when Harilal vents out his frustration in open.This means he becomes mentally weak and gets psychologically deranged to an extent that he is forced into religious conversions and alcoholism ,with debt and dis-obedience fuelling his negative thoughts.He still had shown the sincere love for his mother through touchy scenes and even Gandhi's humble expressions form Harilal to forgive him didn't meet any conclusions in his mind as he always feared the Father,Gandhi.<br /><br />he couldn't digest the fact that Gandhi couldn't share his love with him as he expected & was driven to rebellion when he couldn't understand the equal-merit based delivery of scholarship money by his father to his cousin where he saw a failed opportunity to study for barrister in england.<br /><br />This had to take it's toll in him thrown to the streets as a beggar when the whole of India was celebrating the Indepedence!The life of a destitute never changes come what may but the manner in which the sad death of Kasturba & Gandhi himself is shown brings in an emotional silence.Finally the last turbulent thoughts of the dying Harilal is shown as a flashback to keep the audience gripping and wondering where did the father of the nation go wrong? was he clever enough to be mentally strong to lead an-one man army & use his brave soldier-son as a weapon to show to the British & rival forces that when it comes to the interest of the nation,nothing comes in between.Sadly though that to read a Mahatma's heart one has to live outside his family and see which the emotionally naive harilal couldn't see living inside....<br /><br />A pity that such naive harilal's are still ruining the efforts of many Mahatma-like fathers in many families in todays' life and have taken to drugs,alcoholism and God knows what thoughts!!Here's a message to all those brave sainik(soldier)-sons please respect the father of the nation!Please Obey and happiness shall be bestowed or else it's a disaster in waiting,isn't it?

Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).

The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).<br /><br />Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.<br /><br />I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.<br /><br />The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.<br /><br />The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.<br /><br />This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.

The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic. With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low. I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).<br /><br />The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong. This is a highschoolers approach to cinema. For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...well...hmmm. <br /><br />If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests. It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one. <br /><br />As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen. All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.<br /><br />The movie had the potential to be something great. The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with. But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.<br /><br />My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition. Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.

Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.

There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.

I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way ("special" meaning "retarded"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even "bad" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend "Weekend With the Babysitter" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.

Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10

He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.<br /><br />Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole"<br /><br />"Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.<br /><br />No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.<br /><br />I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. <br /><br />What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something? <br /><br />Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.

This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br />

I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.<br /><br />There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.<br /><br />Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.

I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.<br /><br />I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.

This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!

I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.

This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.

I'm sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in "Mean Girls". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.

The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot. <br /><br />Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.

I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.<br /><br />Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we "meet the family" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.

Robert Stack never really got over losing a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Kyle in "Written on the Wind" to Anthony Quinn's 12-minute performance in "Lust for Life." Stack plays the deeply disturbed, alcoholic son of an oil tycoon. He has lived his life in the shadow of the friend with whom he was raised, Mitch, played by Rock Hudson. They both love the same woman, Lucy, (Lauren Bacall), who becomes Kyle's wife. Kyle's sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone), is a drunken slut who's in love with Mitch. Their story plays out in glorious color under the able direction of Douglas Sirk, who really dominated the melodrama field with some incredible films, including "Imitation of Life," "All that Heaven Allows," "Magnificent Obsession," and many others.<br /><br />Make no mistake - this is a potboiler, and Stack and Dorothy Malone make the most of their roles, Malone winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. There's one amazing scene, mentioned in other comments, where she wildly dances to loud music as her father collapses and dies on the staircase. We're led to believe that Marylee sleeps with everyone, including the guy that pumps the gas, because she's in love with Mitch. Mitch wants nothing to do with her. He's so in love with Lucy that, out of loyalty to Kyle, he wants to go to work in Iran to avoid temptation. I doubt he'd be so anxious to get there today no matter how much in love he was.<br /><br />Hudson and Bacall have the less exciting roles here - Hudson's Mitch is the good guy who's been cleaning up Kyle's messes for his entire life, and Bacall is Mitch's wife who finds herself in a nightmare when her husband starts drinking again after a year of sobriety. Sirk focuses on the more volatile supporting players.<br /><br />In Sirk's hands, "Written on the Wind" is an effective film, and the big scene toward the end in the mansion is particularly exciting. The director had a gift for this type of movie, and though he had many imitators, he never had an equal.

I was lucky enough to see this at a pre-screening last night (Oct. 20) and I was incredibly surprised by the wonderful plot and genuinely heart felt acting.<br /><br />While the plot is not particularly complicated or exceptionally new, the story unfolds in a way that feels fresh, unique, and distinctly "indy" in style. It isn't something that can easily be compared to films of the past, it's a unique take on a sort of classic middle-aged depressed love story.<br /><br />I was particularly struck by the casting of the film. Down to every last extra in the family, it was a beautiful and talented cast. The three daughters did a wonderful job, the talent was evenly dispersed between them and none of them "out-shone" the other two.<br /><br />It was truly a delightful film, appropriate for all ages and laugh out loud funny while also being truly touching and heart warming. It was a wonderful break from the sex jokes and nudity of recent films.

I am a glutton for B-movies. I love the old Drive-In fare like this movie. This film, made for very little money it seems, does do one thing that some bigger budgeted films fail. It is cheezy. It is gory. It has no real plot, but it entertained me for an hour and a half. I was either laughing or covering my eyes in shock. There are a few great effects like a shot from INSIDE a guy's mouth when he gets stabbed in the chin by a knife and it pokes up through his tongue and slams into the roof of his mouth, and one gross-out with a guy getting his eyeballs yanked out. But there is also loads of zombies, and some psycho killers patterned after Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a demon possessed scarecrow. I loved the dialogue that the killers spout as they torture and kill people. It has great camera work, and some cool editing tricks. This one is more original than the first Bloodbath, and the undead look better, but it is still patterned after those dubbed trashy zombie movies of the 70's and 80's and it still has a cheeze factor that ranks mighty high. Don't expect Romero, just second-rate Fulci. I would say that Horror fans will like it, and it is funny and cheezy and a fast ride through B-movie Land.

Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.<br /><br />If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.<br /><br />The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.<br /><br />The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.

A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.

Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not.

Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).<br /><br />And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.<br /><br />Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?<br /><br />About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.<br /><br />Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.<br /><br />Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.<br /><br />This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.

This is one of my favourite martial arts movies from Hong Kong. It is one of John Woo's earliest films and one of only a few traditional martial arts movies he directed. You can see his influences from working under Chang Cheh in this film. The action is good, the fight choreography is conducted by Fong Hak On who appears as one of the bad guys in the movie. It stars Wei Pei of "Five Venoms" fame and a whole host of faces familiar to fans of Golden Harvest and Shaw Brothers productions. The story line is interesting, there are a few decent plot twists and the build up of the characters and their relationships with each other is cleverly done. This film has only had a VHS release in the UK. Media Asia have released a region 3 DVD and there are versions of it on DVD available from the USA. The film is lovely to watch in either it's original language or in it's English dubbed version. I highly recommend this movie.

I don't know how and where do the Iranian directors get their inspiration in coming up with a plot like this. In fact, it's a very simple plot that many directors could come up with --- but may not be able to project it onto a movie the way Jafar Panahi did.<br /><br />The film is like 2 worlds revolving at the same time, one connected to the other - the football match and the battle between sexes that's going on behind the walls of the stadium.<br /><br />It makes you feel like you are in the movie and you're one of the characters, and while watching the movie, as if you also would like to have a glimpse of the football match. You will feel exactly the same excitement and sentiments as those female actors in the movie. It's gripping in a way that you wanted to see the ending, you will want to find out the verdict, you'll be dying to see what will happen to the girls.<br /><br />I like the intermittent conversations between the smoking girl and one of the military trainee. It's like venus VS mars, it really shows the difference in the thinking of men and women and the struggle of women to get equal rights and opportunity especially in a very patriarchal society like Iran.<br /><br />This is the second movie of Jafar Panahi that I have seen (the first being Crimson Gold) and am looking forward to watching some more.<br /><br />Am already hooked with Iranian movies and this one is a must-see!

What a wonderful documentary - I sat down thinking this would be a rehash of the bitchy stories told in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but it is, in fact, a clear-eyed, glorious celebration of a strange and twisted era that spawned some truly great movies. What struck me was the lack of bitterness apparent in the director interviews, given that now the movie business sucks in a large fashion - instead, folk like Friedkin and Coppola's eyes seem to positively glitter recalling their glory days. The footage of an audience coming out of a daytime screening of the Exorcist was priceless. 'It was - traumatic,' one guy says. A great epitaph for the late Ted Demme, a thrilling film, I just wish it was longer - I could have sat through a three hour cut of this.

This movie is probably one of 3 worst movies made in history. I rented this by chance, without reading reviews, and wow, do I regret it. Really has no plot, doesn't really follow the vampire genre. Just plain god awful. Watching this movie will taint your enthusiasm for vampire movies. I felt like the writer/director/producer went on this drug binge and had hallucinations and tried to recreate it on film. Whole time I wanted the movie to end.. but the ending was even more whacked. <br /><br />If this review can save just one person from watching this crap, I felt my time spent on registration and writing this review was well worth it.

most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit".

The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable. <br /><br />But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.

Graphically, it is the same game as the first one just different levels and some new features added for fun.<br /><br />The PS1 version still has an issue with giving skaters enough air for some ground tricks. The Dreamcast version, which is rarely seen anymore, was the best version of the 4 versions (Xbox eventually came out with a 5th with 2x), it had the clearer resolution and the skaters looked better and more detailed the PS1 and N64 could handle.<br /><br />The levels are really amazingly done, from start to finish, like the first one, the school was my favorite, i enjoyed that level so much, not only for the golf cart that would sometimes run you over but for the length. That's what i liked about the first two games, they don't make these games graphically enhanced, they just focused on length of levels, which is cool.<br /><br />Overall, just as good as the first one, and well worth playing.

With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. <br /><br />Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? <br /><br />The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! <br /><br />There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. <br /><br />By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel."

"Tourist Trap" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including "Crawlspace","Puppet Master" and "Netherworld".Still "Tourist Trap" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.<br /><br />Rated PG for Brief Nudity, Violence and Profanity.

This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.<br /><br />This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house"). <br /><br />Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance.

My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.

This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.

A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.<br /><br />Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.<br /><br />That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.<br /><br />I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one.

THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.<br /><br />The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.<br /><br />The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing "buddies" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.<br /><br />It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film.

A few years ago, I bought several $1 DVD's that contained two movies each. One of them had Three Broadway Girls (an alternate title for The Greeks Had a Word for Them) and this one, Happy Go Lovely. It's basically a backstage musical comedy that takes place in Scotland and concerns mistaken identity involving one of the dancers hitching a ride from a millionaire's limousine. Vera-Ellen is that dancer and-wow, what legs! Ceasar Romero is her producer who takes a chance on her after the original leading lady leaves because he thinks she's dating the millionaire whose car I just mentioned. And David Niven is that rich guy who, when looking for Vera-Ellen, is mistaken for a reporter who's supposed to interview her but gets stalled by Romero. What I've just mentioned may be confusing but (mostly) makes sense if you're willing to check your brain while watching this charmingly screwball comedy with wonderful musical numbers as performed by the exquisite Ms. Vera-Ellen. Romero can be a bit frantic here but Niven becomes hilariously bemused throughout. The print I saw was actually pretty good considering its age and the fact that it's in public domain. And Vera-Ellen does pretty well with her lines since she's not really an actress. So on that note, I highly recommend Happy Go Lovely for movie buffs who love old-fashioned musical comedies.

I grew up watching sitcoms such as Seinfeld, Roseanne, Simpsons, etc. etc. in other words mainstream television. Over the years many sitcoms have come on the air and of those a very small percentage are genuinally smart and funny. The War at Home is a prime example of the majority of modern American comedy.<br /><br />I give the show a 3 out of 10 because it is what it aims to be, a comedy, but it doesn't seem to go out of its way to be a good comedy. A good comedy should have you swept off your feet with its big jokes, you shouldn't be able to see them coming and in TWAH I see just about every joke coming. The characters are probably the most simplistic and horrible stereotypes I have seen yet on screen, and the acting isn't very good save for the father who portrays a stereotypical beer drinking sport loving American idiot perfectly.<br /><br />Poor acting, unbelievable characters, and jokes that don't catch you off guard detract from this show to a point of where it is unwatchable. If you don't have cable and would like to see a comedy worth watching, try Boston Legal. It is more worth your time.

Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!<br /><br />In 1987, Disney, while still a "low" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called "Not Quite Human," about a geeky teenager who, like in "Inspector Gadget," looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like "Tron" and "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!<br /><br />My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)<br /><br />"Not Quite Human" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again. <br /><br />Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.<br /><br />10/10

I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.<br /><br />The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.<br /><br />3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.

Oh it's so cool to watch a Silent Classic once in while! Director Vidor is simply delightful and even makes a lengthy (at least for 1928) cameo as himself. The story is about having success in life and the way it changes you. Marion Davies plays a girl that leaves its friends in a little comedy studio to be part of a larger "drama" studio. She becomes a big star and the consequences are she really alienates from the real world. For a moment she even denies her (poor) past! The cameos are simply hilarious, certainly the scene where the main character (Marion Davies) sees...Marion Davies in the studios and concludes she doesn't seem that special... It's got to be one of the first movie-in-the-movies here and for real freaks it's awesome to see the cameras and material from way back then. A must-see if you ask me!!

This is an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.

i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on.

2003 was seen as the year of the Matrix, with the release of two sequels and a computer game that actually linked to the plot of the film. Also released was a DVD of 9 short animated films, most written and made in Japan and made as Anime. Japan makes some of the best animation in the world. Sadly most of these shorts are disappointing. The best of them is the first part of a prequel to the first Matrix film.<br /><br />The Second Renaissance is made as a historical file. It tells how humans made machines in their own likeness. Humans live the high life whilst machines are the grunts, the workers of society, second class citizens. In the year 2090, a machine, BI-66ER was put of trial for murder, after killing his owners who wanted to deactivate him. The machine does not have a fair trial and riots start around the world. The governments of the world order to dismantle machines. Many machines leave human society and form their own country in the Middle East, O1. 01 has a productive economy and easily undercut the human nations, forcing them into economic crisis. The human blockade 01 and reject the machines requests for peace, thereby it was the humans who were responsible for the war that enslaves them.<br /><br />The Second Renaissance is a interesting watch, with excellent, traditional animation style and sets a compelling world. It shows how the machines were mistreated and that humanity sowed the seeds of their own destruction. There is a political and social world and the short tells a lot in it short running time. The short shares themes and a style to the classic silent film Metropolis, partly the beginning with the underworld. They are the themes of slavery, the mistreatment of the working class and racism. The short also has some religious themes and religious iconography. Mainly that men saw themselves as God and created the machines in their own likeness. Seeing themselves as the rightful masters of the machines. The machines too use religious iconography, mainly forming their nation in 'cradle of human civilisation' and the machines coming to the United Nations dressed as Adam and Eve, offering an apple.<br /><br />The animation style is beautiful, done in the traditional anime style (like Akira). The set designs are great, combine futuristic with historic cities, e.g. Washington D.C.. There is well down future scene, and surprising violence, which is key to the film. The director, Mahiro Maeda, also directed the anime sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1, so has good credentials to Hollywood. He is willing to use violence and know how to keep a story going.<br /><br />The only real complain is a continuity error to the first Matrix film because Morpheus mentions that the humans have no historical records or know who started the war. But its a good watch.

I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?<br /><br />I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???

I could watch this movie ALL DAY! I LOVE it. Probably my all time favorite movies. But, by the way, "badger1970" there are a few parts with bad language, not TOO bad, but it's not exactly G rated. GREAT movie!!!!! I recommend it to everybody. Any way, it's making me type 10 lines of text, so I am going to keep typing until it will let me post this comment. Okay... Still typing... This is getting annoying. Ugh. I still have four more to go. Anyway, WATCH THIS MOVIE! Even if you have already seen it. I DON'T CARE! Has it been 10 lines yet? Nope. Only 2 more lines left. I don't even know why it wants me to do this. I think I am done. Wait a minute, I'm NOT done, SORRY, people. I know it's torture listening to me. WEll, I suppose that you don't HAVE to read this comment... But you should, because I wrote it. I am probably done now. Finally, bye.

Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.<br /><br />That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.<br /><br />Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.<br /><br />I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.<br /><br />There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.<br /><br />According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.<br /><br />But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.<br /><br />So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind.

This was a pretty good movie. I love fighter jet movies, and this was the best one I've seen lately. It was made using real planes, so that made it an even better movie. If you like watching U.S. F-16s blow the living daylights out of their enemies, this is a great movie for you.

"twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.<br /><br />many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.<br /><br />It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.

As I have matured, my fascination with the Academy Awards has evolved from intense interest to casual amusement. As in a few other comments that I have written, the bizarre results of Academy Award voting are often difficult to explain. The omission of "In Cold Blood" in 1967 as one of the five Best Picture nominees is one of those inexplicable instances, especially when one of the nominations that year went to the wretched and unwatchable "Dr. Dolittle." While only an insomniac or masochist would tune in to that Rex Harrison disaster, Richard Brook's powerful adaptation of Truman Capotes non-fiction novel retains its ability to capture the viewer's attention and leave him or her completely drained by the final fade out. While there is nothing particularly graphic or gruesome on screen, the film is definitely adult material. Based on a Nebraska multiple murder in the 1950's and filmed in the actual locations where the murders took place, "In Cold Blood" was filmed by master cinematographer Conrad Hall in stark black and white, and his screen compositions demand to be seen in their correct widescreen aspect ratio. Together with Quincy Jones's unsettling score, Hall's work should have been credited above the title with Brook's screenplay as the three pillars on which this intense classic is built. The performances are fine as well. Scott Wilson is all cold charm and Robert Blake intense introversion as the two killers. (There is an inside joke at one point when Blake speaks of Bogart and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" while the duo are driving to Mexico. As a child star, Blake sold the lottery ticket to Bogart in that John Huston film.) The film, like the book, is definitely slanted towards the killers and has an anti-capital punishment tilt, although the remorselessness of the murderers somewhat negates that sentiment despite the difficult-to-watch final scenes. Some have criticized the film because it does focus on the criminals, their backgrounds, and lives, while the Clutter family, which was literally murdered in cold blood in the middle of the night, come across as one-dimensional characters of little import. This lack of balance comes from the book as Capote spent much time with the two killers while they were on death row. The Clutter family was apparently not researched to the same depth. However, whatever feelings one may have for or against capital punishment, "In Cold Blood" will leave you mired deep in conflicting thoughts. Run a double bill with "Dead Man Walking," and you may not speak for days.

Today if someone mentions the name Victor McLaglen the response most likely will be "Who?" or perhaps "Why?" Well, believe it or not, Victor McLaglen won the Academy Award for Best Actor in this film, which is about a poor, desperate man who is willing to sell out his best friend for "carfare" to the United States. It's an interesting movie which shows how low even the most well-meaning shnooks will go just for a few bucks. The movie takes place in British-dominated Ireland and while all the other characters are either directly or indirectly fighting for the political independence of Ireland, all Mr. McLaglen's character is concerned about is getting money and getting drunk. The movie makes one wonder whether political activism is worth all the trouble because while the activist is struggling to make a point, many others not only do not care, they don't even know what the fuss is all about. The morale of this movie is: look out for the friend, he may sell you out for a dime.

This is truly one from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next. <br /><br />All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added.

As soon as I heard about this film I knew I had to check it out. Well, I heard about it, then I found the trailer. After that, that's when I knew I had to see it. And I am so glad I did. You want to see classic television mixed with zombies? No? Then get lost.<br /><br />FIDO is a movie unlike anything I've ever seen. Well, actually, it kind of is. It's kind of like a Lassie episode and a Zombie film. Though when combined, it feels completely new and original. FIDO is about a little boy named Timmy and his new pet Fido. Well this new pet ain't no squawking parakeet or some potty-trained puppy. It's a re-animated dead guy...a zombie. A large radiation cloud engulfed Earth which led to all of the dead rising, which ensued the Zombie Wars. Though through the genius of Reinhold Giger, lead scientist of ZomCon, he discovered that if you destroy the brain, the zombie will perish, thus giving us the edge and the win in the Zombie War. Though due to lingering radiation, whoever dies becomes a zombie. Which can be a problem especially with the elderly. Though Zomcom steps up again with more breakthroughs, especially with the Domestication Collar. The collar stops the zombie's need for human flesh and thus making it harmless as a household pet. But not all is perfect in this Zombie Utopia, collars break, old people die and....well I'll just let you watch this incredibly unique flick.<br /><br />FIDO is a fantastic idea brought to fruition. With an all-star cast, and great writing FIDO rises above most in the comedy/horror genre. There are plenty of funny and original situations that really had me entertained. Though after seeing the film, I personally think the movie would have been better in black and white. At less than 90 minutes, the movie doesn't go on for too long and moves from scene to scene at a good rate. It'll probably end up being a cult-classic of sorts, since it's not really a laugh out loud comedy or even a horror movie. It's a comedy/family/zombie film immersed in the 1950 vibe. If you thought anything I said here was interesting by all means check this film out. But if you're still on the fence, swing your leg back over and stay there. 8.5 outta 10

This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl<br /><br />Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic. <br /><br />This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"!

The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film.

Massive multiple chills down the spine! I'm surprised there's people who didn't like it! I saw it at 10 o'clock in the morning and still got scared stiff! And I've seen hundreds of thrillers/horror movies! For crying out loud,I'm 22!!! I mean, OK, voice acting, not particularly good, probably even b-movie-ish. But the genuine look of terror, the sound effects, the flow! From the very start, hitting you again and again with relentless, unforgiving, terrorising scenes! So many clichés yet none fails to surprise/scare! You know it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, BOO! and you still jump off the chair. Grab a pillow and a blanket, call your closest friend over and do not watch it at night! Hats off to the Japanese!

By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ? <br /><br />The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie <br /><br />I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this

I saw this version of Hamlet on television many years ago, and have seen every other version since, whether television or movie. However, this is the one that remains the truest depiction of the story for me. Most excellent Derek Jacobi made Hamlet *real* for me. Before I saw this version, Shakespeare was simply gibberish to me and I never tried to understand the Elizabethan English. Having seen Jacobi's Hamlet several times not only increased my knowledge of literature, but also that of my family. I promptly checked the play out of Library and read it, and poured over the accompanying recording. Jacobi's rendition attracted me to a deeper knowledge. And yet, I have been searing for a video of it for years and years to no avail. It gets a very high rating from viewers. Why, then, has it not been released on video? It's the only Hamlet that I'd invest in...

This was very energetic and well played show. I saw it back in 98 and my friends and i still joke about it. Each time I watch it's always as funny as the first. I also love the way that everyone can relate to it in their own particular ways. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of John's own scripts and productions. <br /><br />Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere for sale, and I've done quite a lot of looking. If anyone knows a website or store to refer me to, I would very much appreciate it as I am looking for his other live performances as well. Please send me a message if any of you have info on the subject. Thankyou.

While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":<br /><br />Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!<br /><br />Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?<br /><br />Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.<br /><br />Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.<br /><br />Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.<br /><br />Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.<br /><br />Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?<br /><br />Writer: Why not?<br /><br />Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.<br /><br />Writer: Of course.<br /><br />Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.<br /><br />Writer: Sure thing!<br /><br />Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?<br /><br />Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!<br /><br />I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"

This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well.

I haven't seen all of Jess Franco's movies, I have seen 5, I think, and there are more than 180 of them. So maybe it's a bit early to say so but "Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden" (better known as 'Succubus', but that is the cut version) is according to me if not the best, certainly on of Franco's best. Franco is best known (although 'known' might be slightly exaggerated) for "Vampiros Lesbos", a weird cultish movie that got more acclaim in the mid 90's when people found out Jess Franco was also an interesting composer. Through the soundtrack a happy few discovered the man and found out what was to be expected after seeing the video clip of 'The lion and the cucumber' ('Vampyros Lesbos OST'): Jess Franco is an overwhelming director. When the phone rang during 'Vampiros', I let it ring. I just wanted to see more of the movie. Since that moment Franco never could grip me that much. But then I stumbled on this movie. It is even better than "Vampiros Lesbos", I think. Franco is looking for what he can do with a story and a camera. We find out he can do a lot. I certainly didn't expect to find "Necronomicon" that great: its beginning didn't impress me at all. Remember, I had seen "Vampiros Lesbos" before (although chronologically that came only three years later) and both movies kinda start the same. But then the story went on, puzzling and gripping, beautiful camera work and the stuff you would like to see Godard do if he weren't so occupied with spreading his political messages. Later on in the movie I heard a dialogue about which art was or wasn't old-fashioned. The man says that all movies have to be old-fashioned because it takes weeks before the audience sees what got filmed. But the girl replies that "Bunuel, Fritz Lang and Godard yesterday made movies for tomorrow". Janine Reynaud is an interesting lead actress and of course Howard Vernon, a Franco regular, is also there. Luckily the acting is good (something that can spoil a lot of Franco movies for you, but not this one). But certainly watch out for the dummy scene. The erotic tension, the wild directing and the fact that it's a yesterday's movie for tomorrow make it a movie a lot of people should see. The fact that it is a bit more accessible than "Vampiros Lesbos" certainly helps.

The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.<br /><br />Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.<br /><br />The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist – one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.

La Antena, an audacious film by Argentine director Esteban Sapir, succeeds both as a reinvention of the silent movie genre and a gripping cautionary tale. The setting is a city in thrall to mindless television, its people deprived of the power of speech except for a solitary and mysterious screen presence known simply as The Voice. In a bid to cement their grip on power the marvellously villainous duo of television mogul Mr. TV and mad scientist Dr. Y set out to kidnap The Voice and turn her unique talent towards their own dastardly ends. It is up to a young family and The Voice's nameless, eyeless son to stop this evil scheme. The result is a roller coaster of a story that is bewildering on occasion but never less than engrossing.<br /><br />This is a silent movie that wears many of its influences on its sleeve; the overt references to silent movie greats such as George Melies and Fritz Lang will be readily apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity of their work. But more subtle references and symbolism lie behind such tributes. I particularly like the fact that Mr. TV and his henchman drive around in typical 1930s gangster cars, drawn from the decade when the silent movie era died away and a very different industry began to emerge.<br /><br />La Antena mines the clichéd plot devices and theatrical over-acting common to so many silent films, albeit in a very knowing and humorous way. It is the astonishing visual style of La Antena that really sets it apart from the movies that it pays homage to. From the hypnotic TV logo to the menacing hilltop transmission station, this film abounds with dazzling visual inventiveness that is the rival of a Studio Ghibli animation – and all this using real actors and handmade sets.<br /><br />Moreover, though the style is often intentionally corny and theatrical, this is still an unsettling, provocative and emotional picture. The use of religious symbolism throughout La Antena lends added resonance to the struggle between the TV Empire and the waning power of words. At the same time, many of the most powerful images are original ones, including the hypnotic swirl of the television sets and the nightmarish TV food factory.<br /><br />I hate to end this review on a sour note, but I feel that the English-language release of La Antena is let down by the subtitles. The original Spanish subtitles are used to great effect, with much playing around with words on screen. However, the English-language subtitles that accompany the original dialogue are frustratingly incomplete, with omissions and mistakes at times leaving the viewer to piece things together for themselves. La Antena is nevertheless a striking piece of cinema; a visually breathtaking experience that displays great energy and humour whilst narrating a powerful cautionary tale.

Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.

A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for? <br /><br />Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.<br /><br />A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton!

OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.<br /><br />Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.<br /><br />However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.<br /><br />I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.<br /><br />Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.

Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.<br /><br />My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.<br /><br />After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.<br /><br />So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.

I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C)

I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.<br /><br />Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.<br /><br />Then again piano sounds.<br /><br />To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.<br /><br />Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.<br /><br />Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.<br /><br />I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.

I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.

How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.<br /><br />Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.<br /><br />Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.<br /><br />

I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of "indie" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.<br /><br />Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a "small" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.<br /><br />The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. "I can't talk to the man," Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. "You'd better learn before winter," replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).<br /><br />Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.<br /><br />We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.<br /><br />This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten.

I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.

French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.<br /><br />Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of.

I am a college student studying a-levels and need help and comments from anyone who has any views at all about the theme of mothers in film, in the mother. Whether you have gone through something similar or just want to comment and help me research more about this film, any comment would much greatly appreciated. The comments will be used solely for exam purposes and will be included in my written exam. So if you have any views at all, im sure i can put them to use and you could help me get an A! I am also studying 'About a Boy' and 'Tadpole' so if you have seen these films as well, i would appreciate it if you could leave comments on here on that page. Thank you.

It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*!

When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time – Avoid at all costs.

This film was strongly recommended by a friend and, being a great fan of Brando, I ordered this film from Harrods and eagerly waited for it to arrive. I have seldom been so disappointed by a film. Brando was good as a German officer but the rest of the film was simply unbearable. You never get to like or care for any of the characters (except Brando, maybe). The acting was OK. Story, what story? Maybe that's the point. It's war after all, but I've seen far better war films. (Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, even Star Wars) It was so boring I kept checking my watch...<br /><br />Overall this is one of the worst films I have seen. Please don't waste your time and money on this. May I also add that this is the first user comment I have written, I just had to let my feelings about this film known.<br /><br />By the way, my all time favourites are: Casablanca, The Godfather 1 &2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp Fiction and Amadeus. If you haven't seen them yet, please spare the time to do so. And Amadeus MUST be in widescreen 2.35:1

I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot.