Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.<br /><br />The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.

I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.<br /><br />But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.<br /><br />This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.<br /><br />It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.<br /><br />I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.<br /><br />I shudder

The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).

I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.

When a movie's claim to fame is that Martin Sheen's younger, less known brother stars in it, you know it's not gonna' be a real good one. "Soultaker" is a low budget, silly film about a group of 20-something year olds being pursued by an angel of death. It's a stupid movie, but it is pretty entertaining, and even somehow slightly likable in it's stupidity.<br /><br />The plot in the film is very small, and it's stretched about as far as it possibly can be. Joe Estevez isn't much of an actor, so luckily for the audience, he has very few lines and his role in mostly just him walking. This movie really feels like it was trying to be a horror/fantasy franchise, considering it has the same plot layout as a slasher. 4 characters, each dies one at a time...will any live? Who really cares. Though it sounds like I hated this, I didn't. I just didn't like it very well, but I was interested through most of it, so I guess that counts for something.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, violence and nudity.

What happens when the average joe finds out he has supernatural powers? The premise may sound familiar. The Watchmen? Unbreakable? However, the Russian sci-fi action flick, The Sword Bearer, is far from the standard stock.<br /><br />The story revolves around a man named Sasha who as a boy was shunned from society, his peers and family due to a supernatural power that he possess. When he wishes or his anger allows, a sword extends from his arm piercing his own skin. Very wolverinish? Maybe... but that's not the interesting part of this film. Shunned all his life and driven by anger (and a temper he does have) our "hero" returns to his home town to turn his life around or find a reason to. The only thing he encounters here is trouble when an encounter with an old flame's new boyfriend leaves him bloodied on the ground. This is where the vengeance and anger comes into play. This is a man you do not want to cross and from this point the mafia and the police are on his tail. He meets a girl and falls in love instantly as does she and this is really what the movie is about.<br /><br />The film is highly impressionistic with bold colors and noir overtones spliced with short yet extreme action sequences. This is art house at it's core, beautifully filmed with such attention to details in every scene over gruesome sci-fi action. It's this odd mash that interests me so much in this film. The directors approach for this genre is refreshing focusing on the emotional journey of Sasha and not a straight action film. Don't worry though, the action is there and plenty of it. However, much of these sequences show only implied violence with pictures of the horrific aftermath. This is not to say that action is not shown. These scenes are here and are fantastic (especially the ending where we see Sasha's full powers unleashed in desperation). The director chooses to imply the violence of many scenes to keep the focus on the character's emotional struggle at hand. This is a tragic love story and a refreshing entry into the genre.

I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.<br /><br /> You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.

I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.

This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.

This is one creepy movie. Creepier than anything David Lynch, and that shows what a great director Polanski is since this is not his usual type of work, and it is BRILLIANT.<br /><br />It all starts of with Trelkovski moves into a tenement block in Paris. He soon learns that the previous tenant, a young woman, committed suicide and he believes the rest of the people living there drove her to it. He also believes that they are trying to do the same to him. What results is a amazing and frightening look at paranoia.<br /><br />The whole production has classical horror written all over it: from the imagery to the music the viewer can feel poor Trelkovski's terror building up.<br /><br />Are they all out to kill him? Or maybe just drive him mad? Is there a difference? Find out for yourself. 10/10

Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.<br /><br />Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.<br /><br />The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.<br /><br />Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.<br /><br />Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.<br /><br />The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.

I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.<br /><br />One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.<br /><br />The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.<br /><br />Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.) <br /><br />Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.<br /><br />So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure.

Kurt Russell, whose career started when he kicked the REAL Elvis in It Happened At the World's Fair, will probably never top his performance as the King in this biopic helmed by slash and shock meister Carpenter. There are times you feel that you're watching Elvis until something snaps you back to reality...perhaps memories of a hapless Don Johnson in Elvis and the Beauty Queen? All the performances here are excellent: Season Hubley as Priscilla, Pat Hingle as the Colonel, even Shelley Winters brings the right level of nerves and hysteria to her rendering of Momma Presley.<br /><br />Kurt's dad Bing is here playing Elvis' father Vernon, and there's a fine understated performance from Robert Gray as Elvis' buddy and bodyguard Red West. <br /><br />A must see for rock n roll fans.

The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.

This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.<br /><br />Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.<br /><br />Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.<br /><br />I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie.

The creators of this movie must have sat down one day and said "let's make fun of the Russians and at the same time show people how advanced we (Americans) are". The movie portrays the Russians as an inferior people who are unable to understand the brilliant ideas put forward by the Americans. It is true that American campaigns are probably more professional and more based on expensive studies than campaigns in any other countries are. However, this movie goes to far and it exaggerates the differences between East and West. To me it looked like a propaganda movie made during the Cold War.

I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).<br /><br />We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.<br /><br />Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.<br /><br />Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.<br /><br />An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.<br /><br />I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.<br /><br />Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?<br /><br />One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!<br /><br />1/10.

This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.<br /><br />This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are "heavy" and inaccessible. <br /><br />

I'm sorry but this guy is not funny. I swear I've heard heard 4 year olds come up with better jokes then some of his. "Dee dee dee" for instance is possibly the worst catch phrase I've ever heard. It lacks any creativity at all, and to be making fun of mentally challenged people when you've reached level of having your own show is incredibly dim-witted on Mencia's part.<br /><br />Though every one compares this fool to Chappelle, their is no contest. First off they had very very different shows. I think all in all Menica's show on average had only about 2 short 5 minute skits in between his 10 minute rants about god knows what. Chappelles show came off more as sketch comedy, with 2-4 skits that occupied all the show. All chappelle did was a short summarization of each skit before and after each one. This is where Mencia fails even more. What would make Mencia think having a show which consists of the same standup comedy that he talks about on his standup specials would be a beneficial idea? Does anybody really want to listen to a bit George Lopez pioneered years before Mencia, but just dragged beyond belief to the point where its dead? Snowflake's chance in Hell.<br /><br />My point is even though most people hate this guy for his rascism, I just cant stand him for his imcompetence. Comedy Central was looking for a minority they could brand as "controversial" and then leave him to follow Chappelles path. The problem, is this guy made it very clear he doesn't want to be Chappelle. So instead he conducts his crappy show like a burning trainwreck right into the ground. Does anybody want to watch a weekly standup about the same stuff every thursday, I know sure as hell I don't.<br /><br />I cant express my gratitude to Comedy Central though. This idiot's show is done. Personally after watching his standup, I don't know how he got his own show in the first place. There are so many more deserving comics like Jim Gafigan, Zach Galifinakis, etc... In fact anyone is better than this fool.

Why did they have to make such a dreadful adaptation? The whole "Complete Jane Austin" series as a part of Masterpiece Classics looks like a huge disappointment. Characters are totally miscast and there's no chemistry on the screen. The whole thing feels rather rushed. The 1999 movie release based on the same novel seems like a masterpiece compared to this. I really want to forget it. I'm really happy though that "Pride and Prejudice" won't be re-made as part of this project and we will see the iconic and magnificent Colin Firth and Jennifer Elle as protagonists. if you skipped this "Mansfield Park" production consider yourself lucky!

Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.<br /><br />Matt Bronson 2/5

Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel/company that made it all possible in the first place.<br /><br />Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape!

The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.<br /><br />"Maximum Risk" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clichés & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.

Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and "gritty downtown" from a suburban perspective.<br /><br />The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English, Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama.<br /><br />This movie truly is Romeo and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad, played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he doesn't judge, ya dig??

I'm sitting here Nov 2006 and I still can't help rave about this movie. Arnold's best movies came in about a 4-5 year span. Running Man, Predator, and Total Recall (1990). All 3 are amazing. The cheesy one liners by Arnold in this movie will make you laugh on more than one occasion. I find the acting in this movie surprisingly good as was the case in Predator and Totall Recall. They did a great job in trying to make the scenes futuristic as it is supposed to take place in 2017, but you can't help but snicker at the 80's style haircuts on the men and woman in the crowd and the normal television monitors in the Running Man studio which we all know here in 2006 are on the way out with the emergence of flat panel and HDTV's. Also the computer graphics of the "The Running Man" game show intro would not look like that in 2017. Nevertheless the storyline is absolutely fantastic. Not once during this movie did I want to get up and not care about the ending which is something I do often with today's movie's. I really think that Arnold's acting is much better than he's given credit for. Now I would not have elected him governor but that's California for you. Buzzsaw, Dynamo, Fireball, SubZero are fantastic "stalkers" as well and I find the producers don't try to overkill the fight scenes. When the stalker is dead...he's dead. It doesn't go on for 20 minutes each. The stalker scenes are quick and entertaining but they don't try and overplay it. I give this movie a 10/10 and that's coming from someone who doesn't enjoy a lot of movies these days. If you get the right actors and the right story then the futuristic graphical displays that you'd see in 2006 are not important or necessary.

Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.<br /><br />Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.<br /><br />It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.<br /><br />Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi "Jew Hunter" SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, "à votre famille et à vos vaches, je dis bravo." The thing of it is, in French "vache" means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.<br /><br />That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.<br /><br />Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France." Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.<br /><br />In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.<br /><br />Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.<br /><br />If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch.

Mr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the "leading man" (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.<br /><br />This Australian "surprise" is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).<br /><br />There may be an age bracket where this "comedy" finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a "ha-ha" for ya!

The story of a Volcano erupting downtown L.A. sounds like a nice plot for a disaster movie. This one though, is missed bigtime. The movie looks chaotic, has a storyline which is hard to follow or believe and the acting was very bad.<br /><br />Im in agreement with a lot of comments that Lee Jones is only good at bossing people around as a chief in some particular field. In this one, he is heading the emergency office. Being chief of such an office it naturally is a good idea to bring along your daughter to dangerous scenes. Clever thinking. Ann Heche touching walls and walking in tunnels that suppose to be 678 degrees fahrenheit. Yea right. Aside from the bad acting those factual errors make the film look almost as silly as Armageddon. The only good point of this movie is that there is no Ben Affleck to make matters even worse. Avoid this movie at all costs.

Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the "Zombie Indians" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian. <br /><br />This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.

To be completely honest, I completely intrigued by the original concept of 'Sleeper Cell.' Having watched the best part of the series on FX Channel (UK), my Sky got broke meaning I missed the crucial finale. But what I DID see of it, I assumed it to be a great story line, good acting and as I don't watch '24' I thought it was great, AND it's been confirmed for a second season...<br /><br />One of the best TV programs I have seen. Much more realistic and believable than "24." Excellent character development and plot line. Does not bash Islam, but gives a thoughtful and considered approach, showing the difference between radical terrorist Islam and true Islam. Everybody should see this show!<br /><br />Stringy xx

Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.<br /><br />The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.<br /><br />If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.<br /><br />A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.<br /><br />I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.<br /><br />You might as well watch Zohan.

Okay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this film addressed some of the "background" many never knew. Now we've got "American Idol" - "Pop Idol" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the "record execs" and how they think they should market something that sells and not market talent.<br /><br />When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire release of "That's the Way of the World" which contained some of their biggest hits: "Shining Star", "Reasons", "Yeanin', Learnin'" and the title. Little did I know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the wonderful "Z" Channel.<br /><br />The "Z" Channel showed this film as part of a "Harvey Keitel" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies -- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film. More than a "vanity piece" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job as a torn record executive trying "to fight the system". There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from this, and a lot of "insider" trade that was exposed.<br /><br />If you can find this uncut...it's worth a look.

At first I didn't think that the performance by Lauren Ambrose was anything but flaky, but as her character developed the portrayal made more sense. Amy Madigan seemed too terse for her role and didn't really tie her daughter's characters together, even though it was apparent that her character was disengaged with the character played by Lauren Ambrose.<br /><br />Christopher Lloyd is a hit as usual and carried off his role to encourage the story line. His character development left the audience wondering why he was chastised by the younger characters and could have been accomplished more directly with <br /><br />The overwhelming glue to this somewhat vague story line was play by Taylor Roberts. Her comprehensive delivery of a simplistic character held the movie together. In this pivotal role, Taylor was able to encourage a realistic family relationship between the characters while acting as the antagonist for all of the other relationships in the film.

In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.

The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.

In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.<br /><br />But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.<br /><br />But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: "You are all dead in this situation!" barks a sergeant. "Any Questions?" "Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.<br /><br />Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.<br /><br />What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.<br /><br />While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military.

Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.<br /><br />Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.<br /><br />I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....<br /><br />In conclusion: Don't waste your time.

I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature – the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!<br /><br />Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout – with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).<br /><br />The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people – including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) – similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)…not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched – CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature – STAGE FRIGHT (1987) – and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...

Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated. <br /><br />The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction. <br /><br />George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...<br /><br />Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever.

A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.

Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" – which are praised all over the world – simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%.

As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.<br /><br />And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.<br /><br />Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.<br /><br />And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number "12" with his finger while doing so....it's like "Evil Sesame Street"....hoo boy.<br /><br />...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring "Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....<br /><br />So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!

What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful. <br /><br />

When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.

A kid with ideals who tries to change things around him. A boy who is forced to become a man, because of the system. A system who hides the truth, and who is violating the rights of existence. A boy who, inspired by Martin Luther King, stands up, and tells the truth. A family who is falling apart, and fighting against it. A movie you can't hide from. You see things, and you hear things, and you feel things, that you till the day you die will hope have never happened for real. Violence, frustration, abuse of power, parents who can't do anything, and a boy with, I am sorry, balls, a boy who will not accept things, who will not let anything happen to him, a kid with power, and a kid who acts like a pro, like he has never done anything else, he caries this movie to the end, and anyone who wants to see how abuse found place back in the 60'ies.

Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.<br /><br />How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.<br /><br />Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.<br /><br />Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.<br /><br />So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.<br /><br />The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.<br /><br />On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.<br /><br />Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.<br /><br />Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.<br /><br />So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.<br /><br />D+

Sometimes laughter in the middle of a horror film is a signal of its greatness. I remember the nervous laughter from the audience in the re-release of The Excorcist… really nervous laughter. It punctuated just how freaked out we all were watching the voice of Satan coming out of a 12 year old girl. In the case of the 2006 remake of the 1972 cult classic The Wicker Man however, it made me think that this new Wickerman is about as scary as the South Park character, Scuzzlebut, the friendly forest monster with TV's Patrick Duffy for a leg and a celery stalk for an arm who's favorite hobby is weaving wicker baskets.<br /><br />3 years ago a friend of mine in Hollywood told me that he heard that Nicolas Cage was going to do a remake of the film. I started laughing and my friend (Keith) got mad at me touting Nicolas Cage as a great actor. I just didn't think that he could pull it off and unfortunately for moviegoers I was right. Gone is the realness, the outstanding original music, the originality, the creepiness and the wonderfully powerful dialogue. Instead we have horror movie clichés, affected acting and changes to the storyline that make any believability fall apart. Like many of the countless Hollywood remakes we have been inundated with lately this feels like we are watching 4th graders on a playground "playing Wickerman".<br /><br />The original film takes place on a remote Scottish Isle where a Scottish police officer is lured there to find a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. In the new spin a California cop (Cage) is lured to an island of the coast of Washington state by his ex-girlfriend to find her missing daughter. She sends a photo and the missing daughter looks exactly like a young girl he tried to save in a fiery crash not long ago. The crash still haunts him in part because the girl's body was never found. Yet even after he gets a letter with her picture in it that connection is completely cast aside as he heads north, alone, to help his ex-girlfriend find her daughter. He arrives to find an island full of actors pretending to be the descendants of Wiccans, many of whom seem like they didn't get call backs for roles in The Village. And like The Village it isn't long before you realize there is nothing to be afraid of here. Not even the cloudy eyed blind sisters who speak in unison.<br /><br />I think that the opportunity in Hollywood to make great amounts of money on a film often comes at great expense to the artistry. I think someone like Nicolas Cage who is in so many films these days loses touch with the magic that film can be when it gets to the point where he has a personal chef on the set preparing his snacks. We needed a bad re-make of the Wickerman like we needed yet another '9-11' movie. I'm starting to wonder if Nicolas changed his surname from Coppola because he wanted to or because he was pleaded with to do so.

hello boys and girls... this isn't your regular movie review, because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious? this movie sucked so many balls i couldn't keep them out of my mouth! they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you'd need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie.<br /><br />the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys, everyone!<br /><br />peace R&H besties4lyf

"Mechenosets" is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as "the sword-bearer". The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again.

EA have shown us that they can make a classic 007 agent and make you feel in the 60's world. The graphics of the game are outstanding and also the voice recording is very professional. I got this game April 2007 (two years after release), and I am still impressed with the gameplay. It's a shame that EA will no longer make 007 games.<br /><br />I give this game 10/10 for the levels it contains, especially the "consulate" level. I would recommend this game to anyone from the age of 13 and over. The only thing I didn't like in the game is the Russian boat level, it was too much pressure. On the whole I like the game A LOT!!

I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.

This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!

Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller

At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.<br /><br />On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.<br /><br />Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.

I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother…" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.

The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!

I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.

I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise. <br /><br />I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..

The plot was not good.<br /><br />The special effects weren't.<br /><br />The acting was... not very good at all.<br /><br />Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.<br /><br />I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.<br /><br />By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".<br /><br />Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.<br /><br />So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.

Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.

you know I've seen a lot of crappy hong kong movies in terms of production and were good. But Running out of TIme was great.<br /><br />i guess what made it so good was the fact that Andy Lau and Ching Wang, have such great chemistry. The film at first is really fast paced but slows down not enough to even notice which is also good, we don't want to have a heart attack,lol. In terms of plot their is enough of other things going on to keep you interested. Lau has some pretty good moments as he uses make up to impersonate people from the underworld. Also the movie has the best oriental supporting cast since "house of Flying Daggers".<br /><br />The movie is great because its so unpredictable and leaves you wondering at every corner. Definitely a good rental with tons of comedy, action and thrills pact in to one, 8 out of 10

I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown "uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away.

Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.<br /><br />I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.<br /><br />I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.<br /><br />This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.

Yet another in the long line of "Don't" films of the late 70's and early 80's yet this one is much more than that. This film is a highly underestimated low budget schlocker with a twist. It has the grainy quality and bizarre soundtrack that is typical of horror films of the time period but it's the highly underestimated performances of the surprisingly talented actors/actresses that make this movie good. A young nurse arrives at Dr. Stephens' progressive mental hospital right after he has been murdered by one of his patients and all is not what it appears to be. It seems Dr. Masters, a rather ambitious female doctor, has taken over his duties and begun to implement her own ideas. Each of the patients take on their own unique personalities and have their own personality traits and flaws which make for highly entertaining interactions. There is the nymphomaniac, the crazy old crone, the woman with an unhealthy obsession with infants, and a man who has reverted back to his childhood among others. There is also a strange little twist to this bizarre story that later finds the young nurse trapped inside the asylum with the patients running around loose and bodies piling up. If you are a fan of cheap 70's sleaze than this is the film for you!

The part where Meg visits the mechanic and he says - "Is the piston firing short?" (implying poor sexual energy on the part of her fiancée) was hilarious. I love Meg Ryan and she is as sweet as ever in this wonderful movie. Very lovable and very intelligent too. Her innocent indignant expressions have you wishing she was yours. The hero handles the garage mechanic to physicist transformation well. Einstein had a romantic side to his psyche? The puzzle round in front of the press and audience was done well. It's awfully underrated and deserves accolades and attempts at a revival. It loses out one vote for including the highly improbable far fetched theory being bought by the US Govt. I don't see why it doesn't figure in the top 20 romantic comedies of the century. Great Movie, it has the presidential seal of approval on it!

Hobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid.

Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.

I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait.

I give it a 2, because of the beautiful Mediterranean Greece, otherwise it would be 1. When Nicholas Cage came into with his first lines, I thought he was just kidding. Cage as an Italian ?? I'm sorry, but very wrong actor who's acting is also BAD, not to mention his Italiano accent. The story is very loose, it might have been good, but with other actors and obviously with other screenplay. The camera is great, photography also but why the hell did you cast Nicholas Cage and Penelope Cruz for the role. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Cage, he has some really great movies, but he obviously isn't for every role. It's really a pity that the cast wasn't better set, because the story has potential.

If it is true that sadomasochism is a two-sided coin which contains the whole in the diverse expression of its opposites, then the cinematic portrait of Erika Kohut has its reality. Professor Kohut treats her piano students with a kind of fascist sadism while longing for the same for herself. Her outward expression projects her desire. That is why she can hurt without guilt or remorse.<br /><br />Along comes talented, charming, handsome young Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel) who is attracted to her because of her passion and her intensity. He wants to become her student so as to be close to her. She rejects him out of hand, but because of his talent the Vienna conservatory votes him in. He falls in love with her. Again she pushes him away, but he will not take no for an answer, and thereby begins his own descent into depravity and loss of self-respect.<br /><br />The question the viewer might ask at this point is, who is in control? The sadist or the masochist? Indeed who is the sadist and who the masochist? It is hard to tell. Is it the person who has just been greatly abused both psychologically and physically, who is actually lying wounded on the floor in grotesque triumphant and fulfillment, or is it the person who is rushing out the door, sated, giving the order that no one is to know what happened.<br /><br />But Erika is not just a sadomasochistic freak. She is a sex extreme freak. She wants to experience the extremes of human sexuality while maintaining the facade of respectability. Actually that isn't even true. She says she doesn't care what others think. She doesn't care if they walk in and find her bleeding on the floor because she is in love. Love, she calls it. For her sex and love are one and the same.<br /><br />At one point Walter tells her that love isn't everything. How ironic such a superfluity is to her. How gratuitous the comment.<br /><br />The movie is beautifully cut and masterfully directed by Michael Haneke who spins the tale with expert camera work and carefully constructed sets in which the essence of the action is not just clear but exemplified (as in the bathroom when Walter propels himself high above the top of the stall to find Erika within). He also employs a fine positioning of the players so that they are always where they should be with well timed cuts from one angle to another. This is particularly important in the scene in which Erika, like a blood-drained corpse caught in stark white and black light, lies under her lover, rigid as stone. Here for the most part we only see her face and the stark outline of her neck with its pulsating artery. We don't need to see any more.<br /><br />The part of Erika Kohut is perfect for Isabelle Huppert who is not afraid of extremes; indeed she excels in them. I have seen her in a number of movies and what she does better than almost anyone is become the character body and soul. Like the woman she plays in this movie she is unafraid of what others may think and cares little about her appearance in a decorative sense. What matters to her is the performance and the challenge. No part is too demanding. No character too depraved. It's as if Huppert wants to experience all of humanity, and wants us to watch her as she does. She is always fascinating and nearly flawless. She is not merely a leading light of the French cinema; she is one of the great actresses of our time who has put together an amazingly diverse body of work.<br /><br />I think it is highly instructive and affords us a wonderful and striking contrast to compare her performance here with her performance in The Lacemaker (La Dentellière) from 1977 when she was 22 years old. There she was apple sweet in her red hair and freckles and her pretty face and her cute little figure playing Pomme, a Parisian apprentice hairdresser. Her character was shy about sex and modest--just an ordinary French girl who hoped one day to be a beautician. Here she is a self-destructive witch, bitter with hateful knowledge of herself, shameless and entirely depraved.<br /><br />Huppert is fortunate in being an actress in France where there are parts like this for women past the age of starlets. (Hollywood could never make a movie like this.) In the American cinema, only a handful of the very best and hardest working actresses can hope to have a career after the age of about thirty. Huppert greatly increases her exposure because of her ability and range, but also because she is willing to play unsympathetic roles, here and also in La Cérémonie (1995) in which she plays a vile, spiteful murderess.<br /><br />Do see this for Isabelle Huppert. You won't forget her or the character she brings to life.

I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .<br /><br />So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ? <br /><br />I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top

I for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.<br /><br />I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.<br /><br />I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.<br /><br />I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.<br /><br />A funny film.

I saw "Sweeney Todd" on Broadway in 1980. It starred George Hearn and featured most of the other cast principals who appeared in the national touring company production, which was videotaped for TV in Los Angeles in 1982. Last night I watched the new DVD release of the Los Angeles production, although I have owned the videotape for many years. The production and the performances could have hardly been better but the original tape's age showed because both the audio and video quality are below modern standards, even on a newly pressed DVD. Nevertheless I still give it 10 out of 10 because of the greatness of the work and George Hearns's and Angella Lansbury's startlingly wonderful performances. Even today, my most memorable recollection from a live musical theater performance has to be Hearn's rendition of "These are My Friends." "You'll drip rubies," brrr.

If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.

Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world.

I was @ 13 yrs of age when I saw this greatly underappreciated film at The ADAMS theatre in Newark, NJ, I purchased the Program, and later bought the soundtrack... still have both.... I am now 55 + yrs.. and have not seen it since (possibly once on network TV, in 1960's???) One of the greatest casts ever assembled, great score and production , please let another generation see this great film... It was my introduction to opera, and aided with my understanding of Tolerance.. Please family of Gerswhins or Premingers, release this classic soon !!

A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.

Updated from a previous comment. The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her comedic stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines, a bit player in crude comedies. They appear together in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star.<br /><br />A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretensions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team, and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glyn, Norma Talmadge, Mae Murray, Rod LaRocque, Leatrice Joy, Dorothy Sebastian, Estelle Taylor, Louella Parsons, Renee Adoree, Aileen Pringle, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Dell Henderson plays the father. Polly Moran is a maid. Paul Ralli is the slimy leading man.<br /><br />SHOW PEOPLE was said to have used the career of Gloria Swanson as its model (I think Mae Murray is closer). Davies and Swanson were friends. But this film's story does parallel the rise of Swanson from one-reel Mack Sennett comedies with Charlie Chaplin to STAR in Cecil B. DeMille films of the late teens and early 20s.<br /><br />Davies and Haines were huge MGM stars and friends. Odd that MGM never teamed them up in a talkie. They're great together! A sweet romance and delightful spoof of early Hollywood. Greta Garbo and Bebe Daniels are mentioned but do not appear.

Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.

The early career of Abe Lincoln is beautifully presented by Ford. Not that anyone alive has seen footage of the real Lincoln, but Fonda, wearing a fake nose, is uncanny as Lincoln, with the voice, delivery, walk, and other mannerisms - exactly as one would imagine Lincoln to have been. Ford, in the first of three consecutive films he made with Fonda, is at the top of his form, perfectly evoking early 19th century America. The story focuses on a pair accused of murder that Lincoln defends and the courtroom scenes are quite well done. The supporting cast includes many of Ford's regulars. This was Alice Brady's last film, as she died months after its release.

I saw this when it came out in theaters back in 1996. I remember I was already familiar with Elijah Wood's work (that's right, he made stuff before "Lord of the Rings"!) and the merchandising tie-ins to the film were pretty abundant ("Flipper" water guns were even circulating).<br /><br />Adults were reminded of the old movies and TV show and for nostalgia's sake took their kids to see it, who were excited because it was a movie about a dolphin and a stupid boy.<br /><br />Unfortunately it wasn't what anyone expected and flopped severely. You know a movie's in trouble when a boy swims away from a Hammerhead shark in the middle of the ocean, and a pack of dolphins scare the shark away, and the kid -- instead of getting out of the water into a boat -- floats in the water for five minutes thanking his dolphin for saving him ... apparently he hasn't taken into mind that the shark is still out there, perhaps even below him.<br /><br />Another problem is Paul Hogan. He looks old, crusty and tired of recycling his Croc Dundee shtick. By now, no one even remembered "Crocodile Dundee" much less Hogan, and I half expected him to suddenly start pretending he didn't know what a hair dryer was for the sake of fish-out-of-water/social-satire laughs.<br /><br />All in all this is a really poor "family" movie that is amateurish and almost hard to watch at times. I hated it when I saw it in theaters back in '96 and I hate it more now.

I'm sure there is a documentary amongst the ruins of this Yawn-fest somewhere, given enough time maybe the producers could find it. I do not connect with any of the characters. This is a problem for a documentary. That disconnection soon festers into a complete animosity bordering on hostility. Although because of the poor story flow, I'm not really sure what is happening to them and what are the consequences of whatever it is they are trying to do. The story and faces jump around so quickly it is very hard to completely understand what is going on. The 3rd founder that takes them for $700K is introduced so late into the film, Khaleil and Tom have to backpaddle (fruitlessly) to explain "oh yeah, this guy created the idea too". And just when I thought I had a slight grasp on who all the tertiary characters were, some crazy woman in ranting about getting a puppy? What's up with that? Also, did Tom really have to give all those awkward speeches to the staff? I can only imagine the boredom they felt when it was really happening. Actually I think I feel for them.

One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.

"Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).<br /><br />The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.<br /><br />Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).<br /><br />It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all.

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks!

I've always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like "The Exorcist" to some of the more underrated like "Black Christmas" or "Just Before Dawn". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the "Young and the Restless"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT! <br /><br />Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in "Night of the Demons",or "Silent Night,Deadly Night",far superior flicks.

Those 2 points are dedicated the reasonable performance from Akshay Kumar. I know Bollywood films do not really strive to be realistic but PLEASE a Walt Disney production is more realistic than this plot. The father is dying and does what any good parent does...kick his son out the son with his PREGNANT wife. A few things that were too hard to swallow- 1. Priyanka 'cool indoor swimming pool in the bedroom' and to go from that to living hungry in her in-laws garden shed???????? 2. Akshay suddenly got the job as a stunt man, gets bitten by rabified dogs, to then just walk off. This film is an INSulT to our intelligence I really cant believe i contributed financially to the 'people' who made this film by taking my family to see it, we left the cinema with a frown, please do not subject yourself to this mess to watching this take my advice and do not waste your 'waqt'.

"Garden State" is another of these "indie"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.<br /><br />When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clichés in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of "Beautiful Girls", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to "find himself" and hang with his old friends, with a little "Ordinary People" thrown in on the side. <br /><br />It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their "lives" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the "retarded quarterback" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like "Hey, I remember you from Junior year". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.<br /><br />Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from "feeling" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to "feel" again. The clichés come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) "The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half." Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the "37" joke in "Clerks", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies. <br /><br />Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clichés, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in "Shattered Glass") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend "Garden State" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few "f**ks" and "awesomes" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't.

This film is unusual and bizarre, and it is nearly unusual and bizarre in a very good way. I give this short a 7 just because it is so unique and off-the-wall, but much of the time it seems as though it is being bizarre just for the sake of being bizarre. If the film had managed to integrate its more bizarre moments into some semblance of a plot then it would have been really fantastic.<br /><br />The main problem here is that it looks as though the creators just jumbled together a bunch of crap about spatulas, then threw in a whole bunch more crap that sounded as though it would sound funny coming from the mouth of a spatula.<br /><br />This is definitely worth checking out, but it is not top rate by any stretch of the creators wild imaginations.

Well I have to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid, when I used to watch it on a home projector as a super-8 reel. Now there isn't much to recommend it, other than the inherent camp value of actors being "terrified" by replicas of human skulls. The special effects are pretty silly, mostly consisting of skulls on wires and superimposed "ghost" images.<br /><br />But there's something to be said for the sets. The large mansion in which it takes place is pretty creepy, especially since it's mostly unfurnished (probably due to budgetary reasons?).<br /><br />It definitely inspires more laughs than screams, however. Just try not to get the giggles when the wife (who does more than her share of screaming) goes into the greenhouse and is confronted with the ghost of her husband's ex.

I watched this movie when it was released and being really young and not too much into cinema it was one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I ever had and it really left a mark inside me.At first I didn't quite understand the story and probably failed to make the necessary correlations between past and present as the movie presents them to the viewer.<br /><br />Years after I first watched I managed to watch it again and this was the time that I fell in love with 'The English Patient', it touched me so deeply and for me it became the best film ever made.<br /><br />Anthony Minghella made an absolutely stunning film, all the locations are amazing and through his camera he manages to create unbelievable emotions inside you.<br /><br />Of course, the music of the film is such a big part of the whole emotional journey of the characters and the film would not be the same without it.<br /><br />But personally the best thing was the fragile performance that Ralph Fiennes gave in this masterpiece. He plays so well the man that falls in love slowly but so deeply with Katherine Clifton,opens up his heart and dives into this prohibited affair.<br /><br />The most heart-breaking scene for me will always be the one where hurt Katherine is carried by Almasy towards the Cave of Swimmers and she wears the thimble that he bought her.She says 'I always wore it.I always loved you' and at that moment he starts crying with such pain flowing from inside him.<br /><br />Juliette Binoche is also amazing in her performance and really deserved the Oscar she won.<br /><br />Overall, this is a film that anybody who proclaims himself a cinema lover should watch in their lives.

This movie is about sexual obsession. Bette Davis plays Mildred. This is a woman who men are drawn to. Not because she is a nice beautiful girl but because she is a sexual entity. Now the movie does not come out and say that but it is obvious. There is a scene in the movie in which men are all going googly eyes over her. She works as a waitress in a coffee shop, she can't read and she not really anybody to look at but she is a flirt. It is obvious the male customers in that coffee shop are there because of her. One day Phillip a club footed failed painter medical student comes in the shop to say a good word for his friend but he becomes besotted the moment he sees her. He starts buying her things even pays for her apartment. Meanwhile she is seeing other people and she makes no secrets of it. He dreams about her like she is a angel, but she is no angel. He is constantly thinking about her. His med school grades are even failing. So what the nookie is too good. He wants to marry her but she rejects him because she is marrying another guy. She always lets Phil know she really doesn't have love feelings for him all of time. He is heart broken but he meets another woman. They seem fine but it is obvious he is still dreaming of the Bimbo. Mildred does comes back with a baby and unwed. Phillip takes her in again, but she starts going out with a friend of his, the light bulb comes on a little and he kicks her out. She does what she knows works so she tries to seduce him, well it doesn't work and she proceeds to burn his tuition money up. Oh we have a club foot that he has problems about, even though a street teenager who has the same problem tells him to lighten up about it. He meets another girl named Sally we have a March of time montage which shows her aging while he strings her along still waiting for Mildred. Well he has no school tuition, can't find a job. Finally Sally and her dad takes him in. Not before another March of Time montage showing him going downhill. Soon his uncle who raised him dies and he gets money to become a doctor. Meanwhile he finds Mildred needs him again. She has TB. meanwhile he is still leading Sally down the Primrose path about marriage and he takes a job on a steamship. Finally the bimbo dies and Phillip declares he is free now and he will marry Sally. I wished she told him to stuff it. Now I know my take on the characters are not going to get me any points. But I feel Phillip was the bad guy. Yes Mildred is a Strumpet BUT he knows it, and he keeps coming back. Mean while he has two other girlfriends who love him but he treats as appetizers. I guess the sex wasn't as good. But in any case he dogs those women waiting for Mildred. Not only that but the man who gets Mildred pregnant is already married and when Philip asks him what he intends to do about Baby ( apparently the baby's name) he laughs is off, he has no intention in supporting her and Baby and he is wealthy. Sally's father who has 9 children say some pretty nasty things about women but he is said to be a old traditionalist. Philip doesn't seem to refute his feelings either. Men are using Mildred as a Boy Toy but the men in this movie come out as unscathed. Yes she was not a respectable woman but far from a villain. To me it is Philip who was had the real problem and it was his sexual obsession for Mildred.

This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.<br /><br />Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.<br /><br />As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)<br /><br />The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one.

You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.<br /><br />This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.<br /><br />Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.<br /><br />Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.<br /><br />Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.

Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that this movie belongs to the 'Aussie trash' pile, but it's fair to say that there are no Academy Award nominees here. What must be considered is that most of the actors in this film weren't actually actors as such, just kids with nothing better to do at the time. There were many others that were offered roles in the film but turned them down to go surfing up the coast; all things taken into account, it really wasn't a bad movie for its time. In some respects it's really not unlike today's times, where peer pressure is still alive and kicking, just without the mobile phones, computers and other similar gadgets that kids lived without, unlike this generation. Anyway, I have to rate this flick as an old fave that I watch once in a blue moon and never take too seriously...

(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...) <br /><br />Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper! <br /><br />It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.<br /><br />Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!

Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....<br /><br />Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.<br /><br />Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes. <br /><br />Disposable at best. 4/10

A wonderful film in the best Scandinavian eldritch magic tradition, with very far sighted analysis of much of the big issues we are just starting to face.<br /><br />Should be compulsory viewing for all politicians.<br /><br />Take your pick from privacy, nuclear sustainability, global climate change, quality of life.<br /><br />Reminiscent of Thoreaus' Walden, but with modern twist, and considerable humour. <br /><br />I'm not Finnish, although I've travelled there and have good Finnish friends, but I found it totally accessible, and also culturally informative.