Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.<br /><br />I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.<br /><br />There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.<br /><br />The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.<br /><br />(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.<br /><br />I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.<br /><br />What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.<br /><br />If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.<br /><br />But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.

REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...

We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening "act". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy

I was sorely disappointed in this movie. Twice I was temped to walk out because segments of the movie were so demoralizing and depressing. The movie has elements that allude to all the seamy things in life (pornography, murder, suicide, fornication, hatred, gang warfare). The graphic nature of the violence in this movie was particularly disturbing.<br /><br />And Richard Dutcher does a great disservice to the LDS Church in portraying missionary attitudes, commitment, spirituality, and obedience as unfocused and lackadaisical.<br /><br />My biggest objection to this movie, however, was that it is the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.<br /><br />Dutcher's God's Army One was okay. His Brigham City was quite good. This movie, in terms of casting, acting, and drama was his best. But in terms of being inspiring or uplifting it was as awful as it could be. In fact, this movie so demoralized me that I am sorry I went. I have lost interest in ever again supporting Dutcher in an LDS-themed movie with a ticket purchase.

Mishima is one of the greatest films ever made. Now I think Paul Schrader is the greatest screenwriter of all time, but I don't really like the films he's directed of what I've seen (with the exception of this and Affliction), but this is an amazing, disturbing, and highly 3-dimensional character study. It follows the life of Yukio Mishima, Japan's most celebrated writer, combining the last day of his life with flashbacks and his stories. I don't know how, but Paul Schrader manages to combine all of those in a very artistic way. The acting is great, so is the photography, and a perfect score by Philip Glass. Although confusing the first viewing, this is one of the few films that becomes richer with each viewing. Truly an underrated gem of a film.

I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.

Father Hood<br /><br />I can understand why a lot of people hate this tale of a father kidnapping his two children and carrying them across America, but I've seen much worse, and--when I saw this years ago--I didn't think it was particularly awful. Patrick Swayze is the worried father who takes his kids on the run with him for personal reasons, and Halle Berry is the cop chasing them down.<br /><br />Overall a decent way to spend a couple hours of your life. You could certainly do worse--ever hear of the film "Pod People"?<br /><br />** 1/2 out of *****<br /><br />Rated PG-13 for some traumatic scenes, adult content matter, violence and language.

Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton.

Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.<br /><br />"Trois couleurs: Rouge" is based on the concept of "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD". The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in "Dekalog 9" it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.<br /><br />In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about "dialogue tests" between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.<br /><br />And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH!

-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up <br /><br />-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.<br /><br />-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out <br /><br />-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then avoid at all cost

I've watched it plenty of times and I'm planning on buying the full feature. I love all of Jason Steele's comedy. It's very different and unique and is very enjoyable. I love indie films and this one is just great. The plot is strange but very funny. This short film is about a talking Spatula named Edward. The order of the events are a bit jumbled, making this film very interesting to watch. At first you see Edward fighting the spoons, but then the focus changes to earlier in his life. This is a silly movie, but of course, it's still great. I highly recommend that you watch this film at www.spatulamadness.com or www.filmcow.com. It's very funny. The humour may not match everybody's taste but watch anyway. It'll only take 16 minutes of your time, and it's free. GO WATCH SPATULA MADNESS!

This is very much not the sort of movie for which John Wayne is known. He plays a diplomat, a man who gets things done through words and persuasion rather than physical action. The film moves with a quiet realism through its superficially unexciting story.<br /><br />For the open-minded, the patient and the thoughtful, this movie is a rich depiction of an intriguing part of history.<br /><br />There are two intertwining stories. The big story is of internalised, isolationist Japan and externalised, expansionist America clashing when their interests conflict. The small, human, story is of an outsider barbarian (Wayne) and a civilised Geisha's initial hostility and dislike turning to mutual respect and love. The human story is a reflection of the greater story of the two nations.<br /><br />The movie is very well done and all actors play their roles well. The two lead roles are performed to perfection. John Wayne is excellent as Townsend Harris, striking exactly the right blend of force and negotiation in his dealings with the Japanese. Eiko Ando is likewise excellent as the Geisha of the title, charming and delightful. The interaction between her character and John Wayne's is particularly well portrayed. This is exactly how these two individuals (as they are depicted in the film) would have behaved.<br /><br />The script is very well written. It lacks all pomposity. and is a realistic depiction of the manner in which the depicted events may have occurred. The characters are real people, not self-consciously "great" figures from history. Furthermore, the clash of cultures and interests is portrayed with great skill and subtlety. Indeed, the clash of a traditionalist, and traditionally powerful, isolationist Japan and a rising, newly powerful nation from across the ocean is summarised very well in one exchange between John Wayne and the local Japanese baron. Wayne complains that shipwrecked sailors are beheaded if they land in Japan, and that passing ships cannot even put into port for water. The Baron responds that Japan just wants to be left alone. Wayne's character replies that Japan is at an increasingly important crossroads of international shipping, and that if things continue as before the nation will be regarded as nothing more than a band of brigands infesting an important roadway. A very real summary of the way in which the two countries each saw themselves as being in the right, and saw the other as being in the wrong. The resultant clash between two self-righteous peoples with conflicting interests has its reflections throughout history, a continuing theme that echoes into the present and on into the future.<br /><br />Cinematography and the depiction of mid-nineteenth century Japan, before the accelerated growth towards industrialisation that was to follow later in the century, is excellent. A visual treat, and an enlightening insight into Japan's ancient civilisation.<br /><br />I highly recommend anyone, whether a John Wayne fan or not, to watch this film if you get the chance. Just be aware that it isn't an action film. It is a representation of an interesting place and time in history, and a slow-boiling love story which (much to their surprise) comes to dominate the personal lives of the two main characters. Watch this film on its merits, without preconceptions, allow yourself to be immersed in its story, and you will thoroughly enjoy it.<br /><br />All in all, an excellent film.

This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.<br /><br />I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.<br /><br />Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.

This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!

I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br />

Dripping with symbolism and filled with marvelous cinematography, Extase is so much more than the erotic drama we've all come to expect. This is almost a silent film, with what dialogue there is in German, and highly simplified German at that. Perhaps the filmmakers intended the film to reach the widest possible European audience, as anyone with even a little high school level Deutsch can easily dispense with the subtitles. The story is of little importance anyway, with the film succeeding on a cinematic level, not a narrative one. Symbols of fecundity and the power of nature overwhelm the human characters--there are even scenes where flowers obscure the face of supposed star Hedy Lamarr--and there are moments here that will remind viewers of the works of Dreyer, Vertov, and Riefenstahl. If the film has any message to convey, I think it's a political one: bourgeois man is timid and impotent; working class man is a happy, productive creature; and woman is the creator, destined to be unfulfilled until she has borne a child. This blend of Soviet socialist realism and National Socialist dogma doesn't overwhelm the film by any means--it's a beauty to watch from beginning to end--but it does place it in a very distinct artistic era. And, oh yeah, Hedy does get her kit off.

I really looked forward to this program for two reasons; I really liked Jan Michael Vincent and I am an aviation nut and have a serious love affair with helicopters. I don't like this program because it takes fantasy to an unbelievable level. The world speed record for helicopters was set at 249 mph by a Westland Lynx several years ago. The only chopper that was ever faster was the experimental Lockheed AH56A in the 1960's. It hit over 300 and was a compound helicopter, which means it had a pusher propeller at the end of its fuselage providing thrust.<br /><br />In short, no helicopter can fly much over 275 because of the principle of rotary wing flight. And the Bell 222, the "actor" that portrayed Airwolf wasn't very fast even by helicopter standards. And it didn't stay in production very long.<br /><br />There was a movie that came out during this time period called "Blue Thunder" that was much more realistic.

Not the worst movie I've seen but definitely not very good either. I myself am a paintball player, used to play airball a lot and going from woods to airball is quite a large change. The movie portrays similar qualitys First of all the movie starts off with this team that apparently is trying to shoot this "Phantom" guy or whatever, they appear to be a professional team and wear jerseys and shoot mags, autocockers. One guy sporting a bushy. Not much wrong with the movie but more how it's perceived it was very cheesy. A bunch of kids who are the good guys are woodsball players who don't appear to have much money and have dreams of getting "better guns". Another team constantly picks on them and insults them because they play woods and blah blah blah The phantom helps these woodsball kids out and trains them and all this crap, he gets them to play airball and basically defeats all the teams including the "professionals".<br /><br />So what exactly is wrong with the movie? Well the budget is a huge thing, a paintball movie WOULDN'T be bad but the budget is pretty low and the movie feels like it was done by an amateur. There are no big names in this film and the acting is very cheesy. The perception of paintball is pretty bad too. They seem to imply that everyone is going to speedball and all this other crap. It just was a lousy movie in my opinion and doesn't give a real perception what paintball is. To be honest real paintball isn't all buddy like, it's a lot of cussing and bonus balling not "respect" and playing by the rules. Don't watch this movie and then expect to go to a field screaming "4 is 1!!"

This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to "Billy Lo" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.

This is actually a groovy-neat little flick, made on absolutely no discernible budget with shot on video crinkliness . It takes a little while to warm up to it. The acting is so bad that it soon acquires a zen-like charm. After a few scenes, you stop noticing the awkward lines or rehearsed sound of some deliveries. The characters all develop a quirky charm, especially "Richard". Forget Anthony Hopkins, Maidens is the guy I'd hire to play a raving psychopath. He just seems to enjoy it so very much! Mixed in with the scenes of mad-slasher gore and zombie infestation are some truly visually effective shots of the title character, "The Midnight Skater" zooming through the campus in a black hoodie, looking for all the world like a cross between the Grim Reaper and, say, The Silver Surfer. These shots make the sometimes ludicrous things the characters say about the Skater seem almost ominous. The soundtrack features some very fun Garage-Punk tunes and the raspy, raucous meanness of it meshes well with the film's mood. Thumbs upish, I say.

The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others.

Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.

So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.<br /><br />This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script.

Jean Claude Van Damme's movie career seems to have gone to hell in a handcart so how ironic to see him playing a character who meets the same fate in a literal manner at the very start of the movie ! It's also interesting to note how very , very similar the plots of his movies play out regardless of who the producer , director or screenwriter are . Van Damme usually plays a character who is living in France then due to a set of circumstances finds himself in another part of the globe where he has a brother who dies and it's up to Van Damme to get revenge helped by a character he's just met . Look at AWOL or LEGOINAIRRE or many other films that feature the headline " Starring Jean Claude Van Damme " and they all feature nearly the same type of story structure . This doesn't mean they're identical of course , just very similar and if you've seen one Van Damme movie you've basically seen them all . It's the same with MAXIMUM RISK

We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out.

I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.<br /><br />In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover.

Most reviews say that this is the weakest point in Hamilton's short movie career. This movie is a bit different from the rest, and considering it the best or the worst depends on what you expect from a movie, and what you expect from Hamilton.<br /><br />Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for.

Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.<br /><br />The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.<br /><br />I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.

It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm Kwon Taek at the time it was. He examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.

This unintentionally amusing mid-80s TV movie is based on the premise that sex bomb Donna Mills (in a mostly appalling wardrobe throughout) is a neglected housewife, pining for her sexy past as a cheerleader. She escapes her empty life by fantasising about random sexual encounters with one of the many attractive men she comes across, finally giving into her fantasies and indulging in a bit on the side, although all she really wants is to reignite the flames of passion with her boring husband James Brolin.<br /><br />There are many laughable aspects to this film, Mills' first foray into co-producing (later, following her departure from Knots Landing, she found great success as a trashy TV movie queen starring in mostly issue-of-the-week melodramas through most of the '90s - she usually played a victim of some sort, clearly determined to wash her hands of the wonderfully wicked and entertaining conniver she played for so long on Knots). Funniest are the drawn-out fantasy sequences, filmed as though they are meant to be soft-core porn (wind and smoke machines, backlighting, porno music), but as this is a network TV movie the scenes are all very chaste and ultimately not very sexy at all. The most amusing (and bizarre) scene has Mills taking a walk on the wild side downtown among the spiky-haired punks (complete with Robert Palmer soundtrack). <br /><br />Less laughable is the dreadful dialogue that the cardboard characters are forced to utter (pity poor Cicely Tyson as the mandatory psycho-analyst, or Veronica Cartwright as the mandatory best friend, or even pre-Babs James Brolin with that daytime soap style of clenched fist anger.)<br /><br />Of course, as in all of these sorts of films, we learn that all problems can be solved through psycho-therapy and then the film just becomes silly, as we explore, briefly, the reasons for Mills' "shocking" behaviour (as if it can't just be that she wants a good shag!)<br /><br />Vacuous.

"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.

I'll admit that I liked the first one, and was really looking forward to the sequel.<br /><br />I was let down. Sure the special effects were technically amazing -- but they weren't believable looking. It looked more like a cartoon. Alright, I admit to liking 80% of the chase scene -- but the fight with all the Mr Smiths? It was too obviously animated.<br /><br />I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is that the non-action parts were crap. Every time Morpheus opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a speech that went on forever and signified nothing.<br /><br />I was also disappointed with the little plot that did exist. What this movie did was tell us that there was no truth in the first movie (except about the existence of the matrix). This movie was a little like seeing the episode of DALLAS where you find out that the entire previous season was a dream.<br /><br />Ugh! I want my $7.00 back!

I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".<br /><br />Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.

OK i own this DVD i got it new at amazon... i mean i think its badass and a pretty cool flick and melissa bale the slutty/bitchy girl they pick up is hot as hell ..., the acting sucks and the whole polt just sucks the clown is some huge guy wearing a mask and its disgusting but its OK i wouldn't recommend it if like u wanted to rent a good entertaining flick after a hard days work but if u have nothing else to do and ur obbsessed with this stupid movies like i am, watch it sometime, and i do not know how artisan DVD has S.I.C.K. in its DVD collection , s.i.c.k. is not good enough to be owned by a half way decent movie company OK well thats all

Now I did watch this when it first came out on VHS, and all my friends and I thought it was a pretty good movie, but then again, we were teenagers. But honestly, not that good of a movie in retrospect. Sort of a hair metal, Dokken version of Carnival of Souls. But a bad movie does not exactly mean it is unwatchable; however, this one seems to lack the charm a lot of the regular Mst3k fodder usually contains. But if it was on cable, and I was bored and drinking beer--sure, I'd watch it again. But then again, I've watched Howling VII about five times now, so maybe you really shouldn't be listening to me.<br /><br />Anyone else think it kind of sad that the director supposedly commented on his own movie? And why did he feel the urge to use caps lock so much?

To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...

I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.<br /><br />The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.

A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.<br /><br />The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.<br /><br />Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?<br /><br />On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting.

A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the "bothersome man" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. "The Bothersome Man" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon.

What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word "butthorn" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from "Lethal Weapon" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in "Red Dawn" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in "Every Which Way You Can."

Another bad spanish picture. This is very baaaad. I only save the photography and the music of José Nieto. The rest of the film is the worst I've seen in years. Paz Vega is horrible. Don't see it.

SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.<br /><br />Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!

Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad.

Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.<br /><br />Reasons to avoid it:<br /><br />1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.<br /><br />2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.<br /><br />3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.<br /><br />And finally,<br /><br />4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned.

A very funny east-meets-west film influenced by the closure of GM's Flint, Michigan plant in the eighties and the rise and integration of Japanese automakers in the US. Set in western Pennsylvania, it features great performances by Michael Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, and George Wendt. Music by blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan.

The finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less "recognizable", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people who read, for those whose "bar" is set high and for those who recognize that living in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why he had to make the art he became known for.

This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of "Deadwood" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be.

The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception

I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!

With this topic, it is so easy to take cheap shots. You know, the guy with hairy legs trying to look like Marilyn Monroe. Not here -- Adrian Pasdar does a superb job of making Gerald a REAL person, someone you care deeply about, and as a result you feel for his plight trying to live both as Gerald and Geraldine. Not only that, but as Geraldine, he looks HOT! And the chemistry between him and Julie Walters is electric. These are two characters who feel love for one another, and it comes through even when they simply look at each other over the breakfast table. Even the potentially cheesy sub-story line of corporate takeovers is believable, and you find yourself cheering at the end! At least I did!

first of all let's start out by saying that Robert Englund Doug Bradley and Melinda Clark should be commended for having to be associated with this piece of drivel. i had to give this a 1 it wouldn't let me give it a zero. wanna know how bad this movie is? my mom calls me from across town and tells me "son, i just watched the stupidest movie ever. i responded as saying "the killer tongue huh?" she was like how did you know that? that's how bad this movie is. i mean it looked like a good movie at first Freddy pinhead Melinda. okay i'll give it a chance. i sat through the rest of this movie only because i wrote a column for reviews of horror movies. i implore you, don't waste your time money or even brain cells on this ludicrous piece of crap. run away. far away. if you see it on the shelf at Hollywood video blockbuster or even your local video store, turn it around and walk away....and i still want my two hours back dang it

In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.<br /><br />Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!<br /><br />Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.<br /><br />Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.

I think every critic who panned "Tommy Boy" when it was released in 1995 ought to go back and watch it and learn it is not a bad film at all. Every critic panned Chris Farley and David Spade's movies. Yes "Coneheads" was funny but kind of had a one joke premise and "Black Sheep" I agreed with the critics is one of the worst movies ever made. But "Tommy Boy" does not fall in the category of "Coneheads" which could have been a little funnier and "Black Sheep" which is a piece of tripe. It is very funny and entertaining. I do agree with the critics that Chris Farley was no John Belushi or John Candy as he claimed to have idolized those guys and those guys had a genius for comedy but Chris Farley was very funny and I wish he were around longer to prove to critics that yes he was no John Belushi, or John Candy but he was very funny. The scenes between Farley and Spade as nemesis are side-splitting hilarious and the premise is also laugh out loud hilarious. It is very sad that Chris Farley is no longer here to make us laugh but we have movies like "Tommy Boy" to remember how truly funny he was. "Tommy Boy" is one of the 1990's best comedies.

What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :)

Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.<br /><br />As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.<br /><br />The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.<br /><br />There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.<br /><br />No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.

I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal. <br /><br />Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.<br /><br />The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know<br /><br />All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating.

On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.<br /><br />On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences "amused".<br /><br />Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British.

The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.<br /><br />Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.<br /><br />The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.<br /><br />The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.<br /><br />The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.<br /><br />The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team. <br /><br />My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?<br /><br />The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.

My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.<br /><br />I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.<br /><br />It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.

If "Love Me Tonight" is "the musical for people who don't like musicals", it has to be said that "The Gay Desperado" is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.<br /><br />Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out "Nessun Dorma" to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.<br /><br />Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic "you say you hate me but you love me really" routine with a refreshing twist.<br /><br />Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems.

The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/<br /><br />And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.

Most of the French films I've seen - and enjoyed - were more talk than action, but that's okay. I found them interesting, well-photographed and with intriguing actors. (However, I did at one point wonder if Gerald Depardieu was in every French film ever made! It seemed that way.)<br /><br />This movie has the same interesting visuals and had a good opening. But then it became talk, talk and more talk....which is fine for a drama but not for a murder mystery. After awhile, I almost fell asleep watching this.<br /><br />Actually, the film was more like a play with almost all the scenes played out in one room. Thus, if you love plays, you should like this...but I want a little more bang for a murder story.

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

Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful.

The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as "Nothings to good for out friends" and "Its collection time Charlie collection time." I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. "They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler" "They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it." The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me.

After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.<br /><br />'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.<br /><br />I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.<br /><br />Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.<br /><br />The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.<br /><br />I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.<br /><br />Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.

this movie was really bad. it has that quality that a lot of indie movies have: moments of humor filled with long spaces that are completely boring. Any die-hard BAM magera fan will prolly like this movie, but then again thats probably the only person who would see it. someone gave me this movie to watch knowing i am a fan of Jackass and was a fan of viva la bam, before the scripted nature of that show wore thin. To explain why this movie doesn't work i should just say the premise itself is played out<br /><br />a guy who is with a girl who is horrible to him. And pretty much the whole movie you've got this Ryan Dunn guy whining and Bam magera skipping around like a merry mischief maker. Dicamillo's performance is strange at best. It's a humorous little nonspecific Canadian french accent that pretty much is the extent of his performance (basically funny for 5 minutes and then its like 'ok you're pretending to be foreign enough already")<br /><br />Maybe it would work if they were going for parody but all they succeed in doing is making a movie with an IQ of zero. I love toilet humor as much as the next guy, but this isn't even lowbrow its just stupid. Its like the only humor to be gotten from this movie is completely inside and the audience, even those savvy to Magera and company, are left out of the joke.<br /><br />Next time magera is handed a sack full of money let's hope he doesn't blow it on some lousy pet project

Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.<br /><br />Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.<br /><br />Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.

This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion.

Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.<br /><br />Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.<br /><br />Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed – strong praise, but well deserved.

This is a by-the-numbers horror film starring Richard Crenna and Joanna Pettet as a psychologist duo who purchase and old mansion and invite a small crew of friends and patients to help clean the place up. Unbeknownst to them, the mansion harbors a cellar door - the gateway to hell. If you are in the mood for a clichéd horror film, then look no further, but if you want something inventive, then this little film won't appeal to you.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (Rather subdued, albeit the scene where a guy cuts his hand with a saw - rather gruesome mind you. Fans of inventive deaths scenes will not like this as every character seems to be electrocuted in some fashion).<br /><br />NUDITY: $ (Nothing to speak of. Mary Louise Weller adds the good looks but her character was underdeveloped).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Cliched, but view-worthy nonetheless. This offers nothing new to the genre but the casting of Victor Buono - who is about as menacing as a department store Santa - seems to have attracted a few viewers).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (The best performances are by Crenna and Pettet with the other actors simply "phoning-in" their roles. The screenwriter fails to develop any characters outside Pettet's character and seemed to have forgotten about Mary Louise Weller (Animal House) who disappears for about twenty minutes and only resurfaces to be electrocuted like everyone else in boring fashion).

I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.

You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. "Ice Cream Man" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.<br /><br />Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the "evil" "psychotic" "bizarre" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.<br /><br />Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy "fat" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.<br /><br />Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.<br /><br />

Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.<br /><br />OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.<br /><br />The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.<br /><br />My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.<br /><br />For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.<br /><br />The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.<br /><br />I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.<br /><br />Here Kitty, Kitty...<br /><br />Tom Willett

The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it.

Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.<br /><br />When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.<br /><br />"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.<br /><br />As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.<br /><br />Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.

Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.

Masters Horror: Sounds Like is set in Seattle where Larry Pearce works as the manager of a computer software call center, having lost his 6 year old son Michael (Nicholas Elia) to a rare heart condition he finds that he has ultra sensitive hearing. Larry hears everything in ten fold, from people typing on computer keyboards, people whispering across the room, people tapping their foot on the floor, dripping taps & eventually even people breathing become unbearable for Larry as he is constantly bombarded with mind piercing noise. Eventually Larry decides he's had enough & if he can't stop the noises themselves then maybe he can stop himself hearing them with the help of a large meat clever...<br /><br />This Canadian American co-production was episode 4 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, written & directed by Brad Anderson I thought Sounds Like was a definite miss. The script was based on a short story by Mike O'Driscoll & I am genuinely surprised by the amount of very positive comments it has here on the IMDb at the present time, for a start I would be very hard pressed to even describe this as a horror film & it feels more like some bizarre sentimental drama until the last 5 minutes when Howard Berger, Gregory Nicotero & the boys at KNB effects actually get to do some work. Larry has this strange unexplained ability to amplify sound & noises from the start so this episode ends up like 55 minutes of exactly the same sort of repetitive build up which leads up to a gory ending although it comes to late to save the episode. This is pretty slow going & while it's well written isn't this meant to be horror themed & I'm slightly confused as to who this is meant to appeal to?<br /><br />Director Anderson does OK but he just keeps repeating the same things over & over again, until the last 5 minutes there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. There's no horror, there's no scares or tension & absolutely no atmosphere.<br /><br />Technically this is very well made, has good production values & doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV program. The acting is very good actually & it's shame the story is somewhat limited.<br /><br />Sounds Like is one of the very worst Masters of Horror episodes, a lot of people seem to like it & that's fine but it's definitely not for me. Another Masters of Horror, another disappointment.

This modern film noir with its off beat humour and dizzying succession of plot twists delivers a story full of surprises, dangerous characters and excellent entertainment from start to finish. It's impossible not to empathise with the honest, unassuming hero or to be gripped by the ways in which he tries to navigate his way out of the terrible predicaments that he finds himself in, so all you can do is fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.<br /><br />The story of an ordinary guy who makes a poor decision and then finds that the repercussions propel him into an uncontrollable sequence of events from which he is unable to extricate himself is pure film noir. The same is true of the themes of murder, deceit, corruption and duplicity which are pervasive throughout. Many of the familiar noir visual motifs are also present, such as the way in which cigarette smoke is lit, the rain soaked roads at night, the heavily shadowed interiors and the lines of shadow (created by louvred doors) across people's faces.<br /><br />Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage), an injured war veteran without money or a job, stops off at a bar in Red Rock, Wyoming and is mistaken by the proprietor Wayne Brown (J T Walsh) for a hit man that he's arranged to employ to murder his wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). Michael, a naturally reticent person, does nothing to disabuse Wayne of his misapprehension, especially as he could use a job and at first doesn't realise what he'd be expected to do. After having been told what his mission is and been given a $5,000 advance, he goes to see Suzanne and warns her about Wayne's plan. She doesn't seem overly concerned about the danger she's in and offers Michael double the fee Wayne had offered, for him to eliminate her husband.<br /><br />Michael decides to take the money he'd received from both parties and leave town. His plan fails however, when he accidentally drives into a man who is standing in the middle of the road and decides to take him to hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. At the hospital, things get more complicated when it emerges that the patient is Suzanne's lover and he has two bullets in his stomach. This leads to the local law enforcement officers getting involved and the revelation that Wayne is the Sheriff!! From this point on, things get even more complicated and also decidedly more dangerous especially when the real hit man, Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper) arrives on the scene.<br /><br />"Red Rock West" has some great moments of suspense, (an example of this is the scene in which Michael makes his escape from Wayne's bar) and also some great performances from its very strong cast. Nicolas Cage's expressions are extremely natural and convincing as he reacts to a variety of situations with anxiety, surprise or uncertainty and J T Walsh is also particularly good as a deceptive character who's always concealing more than he's actually saying. Dennis Hopper is intensely threatening as the vicious contract killer (a role he plays with great gusto) and Lara Flynn Boyle looks suitably cold and calculating as the femme fatale. Dwight Yoakam also provides some good support and moments of humour in his cameo role as a no nonsense truck driver.<br /><br />Incredibly, "Red Rock West" was originally destined to be denied a general cinema release but has justifiably emerged from its modest beginnings to eventually be recognised as the great movie that it really is.

mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society. The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. Hirarala arrives in South Africa to help his dad who is a barrister, since gandhi was involved in the freedom struggle, he wanted his wife and children to join in too as a service to the society and as a result hirarlal does not get a chance to complete his education and fails his exams, he gets married to his love gulab (bhoomika Chawla) against his father's wishes. Hiralal has ambitions to travel to england and become a barrister just like his dad but his own dad refuses to grant him a scholarship offered to his family by a businessman and instead gives it away to another person saying that the scholarship should not be limited to his family and should be open to the most deserving student living in colony. This angers hiralal and the rift between father and son increases, hirarlal hates his father for neglecting him and blames him for being uneducated and unemployed. Hiralal struggles to make ends meet and lands up on the streets through failed business attempts and in huge debt, he loses his wife and children. Akshaye Khanna has give a stellar performance as Hiralal gandhi.. all kudos to him, the direction and the script is fantastic, the picturization is excellent. overall an Excellent movie and a must see. I give it a 10/10

here in Germany it was only shown on TV one time. today, as everything becomes mainstream, it's absolute impossible, to watch a film like this again on the screen. maybe it's the same in USA, or especially GB. The Message is a brutal truth : Find friends to make your ideas come a bit closer to reality, or you become a loser, if not an asshole instead.<br /><br />The whole film is not particularly as simple, as it may seem here. Every little scene, every sentence, every behavior of the characters show a sharp look at what could happen, when one person is not accepted in a sadistic crowd, which calls itself normal.<br /><br />Very well played by all this is a must seen. Who is the main character? John (not Cox, folks, remember ;-) ore Niles (who still is Bimbo) Decide and you will get the plot as it is intended.<br /><br />A bitter look at what society becomes in a repressive system. Kind of Salingers Catcher in the rye and Goldings Lord of the flies thought to the very end.<br /><br />The Final maybe change your own mind. Word

If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".<br /><br />It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.<br /><br />The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.<br /><br />This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy.

This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.<br /><br />To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...

William Shakespeare's plays are classified as comedy, tragedy, or history. Some of his most memorable --and most often read -- creations provide us with wistful humor, gentle poetry and hilarious slapstick. Some of them survive as unforgettable dramas of compelling depth and gravity. Regardless, he was able to write with unparalleled skill and inventiveness, contributing greatly to our young language. So in what category lies The Merchant of Venice ? I was very surprised to find it is one of Shakespeare's comedies. I had never before read it nor seen it, but after watching this most recent film version I have decided it is neither and it is both. This is one of many questions the viewer must try to answer when coming to terms with what is clearly a perplexing and deeply troubling moral tragedy.<br /><br />The players are introduced quickly, and simply. One of them, firstly, is Venice itself; director Michael Radford filmed the Venetian scenes in the actual city, creating an impressively vibrant, bustling backdrop to the play's proceedings. To this scenery enters the youthful Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), returning to Venice to see a dear old friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons). It seems the poor Bassanio has heard of a princess whose father has died and has left to any potential suitors a lottery of sorts. Waiting at the fair lady's island estate are three small trunks, <br /><br />only one of which contains "images of the princess". He who can guess the right one, using only blind intuition and the cryptic teasers written upon them, will be bestowed the father's huge fortune for life. Oh, and his daughter and her eternal love in marriage, I forgot to mention. Here the light comedy of Shakespeare takes over the movie. This farcical plot element drives the story and also fills up much of the film's screen time, as a number of painfully eager opportunists arrive at the island, humorously vying for and failing to earn this very wealthy hand in marriage. But before any of this occurs Bassanio, very much lacking in finances, entreats Antonio to loan him three thousand ducats to pay for the lengthy journey he must take to have his shot at the prize. <br /><br />Antonio, himself nearly penniless, must reluctantly embrace humility by seeking the financial aid of Shylock (Al Pacino), one of countless Jewish usurers who keep the sagging economy afloat yet are scorned and persecuted to no end by the city's zealously Christian majority. Thus they dwell in society's underbelly, and it is here the two borrowers must go. Shylock does not hesitate to remind the two men of a certain incident where Antonio insulted and spat on him in the city market, and he proudly rebukes this man who frankly has a lot of nerve now coming to ask for help. But help him Shylock does. He even erases any kind of interest on the loan, most likely feeling he has no reason to be concerned if Antonio will be able to repay him within three months. Still, Shylock's one contractual demand is a pound of Antonio's flesh, should he renege on their agreement. This is an unsettling request, to be sure, for Antonio and Bassanio as well as for us. But it appears that despite his justifiable pride Shylock does not really anticipate seeing such a gruesome act occurring. <br /><br />So here the dramatic groundwork has been laid. And while the film goes off to explore its gentler side with its love lottery and mistaken identities, there still looms the gloomy prospect of the loan itself. In the end, what will become of this ominous agreement? Meanwhile we are left at turns to explore the true central character of Shylock. Al Pacino has ample dramatic weight to carry here, and he does so with convincing grit and passion. There are times when he is given room for the theatrics we have come to expect from such a colorful actor. But his most impressive scenes are the ones where he internalizes this energy, showing a conflicted personality: honest, sincere, and proud, yet brooding, vengeful and entirely remorseless. This is one of Pacino's most heartfelt performances to date. And while the rest of the cast play their roles creditably and convincingly, it is Pacino who really owns the film -- especially toward the end, when Shakespeare upends this seeming romantic comedy with a wallop of a third act.<br /><br />I shall not reveal much here; all I can say is that it involves the initial loan -- a mighty shoe one expected would drop sooner or later. And does it ever. By the end Shakespeare has raised a host of dilemmas for his audience: seemingly unresolvable questions of faith, morality, law, and mercy are thrown before us through the final scenes, and while by curtain's close the playwright's position may seem clear to some, we are left completely at odds. There are winners and losers in this one, but have the winners earned their spoils with good reason, or have they in a larger sense ended out losing as well? Has virtue been rewarded, or simply flouted? Has justice in fact this time been just? By the play's finish some fates are painfully clear, and unequivocally sealed. But the audience are to be the ones who really decide the verdict for all of those involved. And for some the verdict is still out for the play as well. Comedy or tragedy? The author has cunningly veiled the intense courtroom finale with an ending of light mirth and pat romantic resolutions. Is he saying that all is well that ends well, or is this his final, ironic condemnation? The play's humor serves to set us up nicely for such a heavy crash. And while it is also what unfortunately keeps The Merchant of Venice from achieving the greatness of so many of Shakespeare's other works, it is still engaging, amusing, and thought-provoking beyond measure.

How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.<br /><br />Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.<br /><br />Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.<br /><br />This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.<br /><br />Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.<br /><br />Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.<br /><br />Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.<br /><br />This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.

HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.<br /><br />For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.<br /><br />Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.<br /><br />Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.<br /><br />What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.<br /><br />What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?<br /><br />How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.<br /><br />And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!<br /><br />And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?<br /><br />Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.<br /><br />On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.<br /><br />One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.<br /><br />A mixed movie for sure.

Better than average World War II-era "who-dun-it" featuring Warner Baxter as a former gangster who suffered amnesia and has been reborn as a psychiatrist now known as Robert Ordway who helps both the police and criminals who want to go straight. Crime Doctor's Courage is the fourth in the series of ten and also involves a victim who might have some mental problems. The link to "courage" is not particularly clear.<br /><br />This entry revolves around the death of fortune hunter Gordon Carson whose two previous wives have under mysterious circumstances and who in turn dies in a locked room under conditions that resemble suicide but Dr. Ordway labels murder. Hillary Brooke plays the part of widow Kathleen Carson who is involved with Anthony Caruso - a mysterious Spanish dancer whose act includes his sister that disappears on stage. As a mystery novelist, Jerome Cowan is a good supporting actor as is Lloyd Corrigan as an aficionado in crime.<br /><br />Spooky houses with creaking doors, caskets in the cellar, and suspects that are never seen in daylight add to the air of suspense. The set for the dance sequence is quite elaborate and the ballet music very good. Direction, production design, and photography stand out. The exterior shots and costumes suggest more affluence rather than normally found in the average "B" detective thriller.<br /><br />Strongly recommended.

While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide.

The Jazz Singer is one of a number of films made in the late 1940's and 1950 about the Jewish experience in the United States. Other than Crossfire(1947) and Gentleman's Agreement(1947) which dealt with anti-semitism they usually had a musical-theatre background. These films included The Jolson Story(1946), Jolson Sings Again(1949), The Eddy Duchin Story(1951), The Eddie Cantor Story(1953),The Benny Goodman Story(1956) and Margorie Morningstar(1958). The leading actors in these "Jewish" films were always played by non-Jews. For example Larry Parks a non-Jew played Al Jolson and Gene Kelly played Noel Airman in Marjorie Morningstar. This casting was probably done to make the Jewish theme palpable to a mainly non-Jewish audience. The Jazz Singer(1952) is no different. Danny Thomas was a devout Catholic and Peggy Lee was certainly not Jewish although she plays a non-practicing Jewess in the film. The clue to her background is when she attends the Golding's family meal before entering she says "I haven't been to a sader (passover service) since I left home".<br /><br />The film is about a cantor's son who has just left the service after seeing action in Korea. His dilemma is whether to become a cantor, a family tradition or to be a singer in musical theatre. His choice of theatre leads to an inevitable conflict with his father.<br /><br />However, there is much more to this film than this. This film was made after the Rosenberg trial during the McCarthy whitchhunts and the Hollywood blacklist. Therefore in this film the Jews are shown as good loyal citizens and<br /><br />are quintessentialy American. The synagogue choir would rather play baseball than practice. The cantors friends also talk about baseball in fact one of them is a Major League umpire. The synagogue itself dates back to 1790 and George Washington is said to have visited. Therefore Jews are presented as part and parcel of American society. Nobody in this film has a Eastern European accent. Peggy Lee appeared in very few feature films. In this film you get to see her sing "Lover" and "Just One of Those Things" wonderful. Danny Thomas is quite credible and he acts and sings the part very well. The comedic routines could have been left out. Yes, the film is schmaltzy and sentimental but it is well worth seeing. I enjoyed it very much.

Before you dismiss my post as "not getting it", let me say...I'm one of the biggest Richard Kelly and "The Twilight Zone" fans out there. Donnie Darko is one my all-time favorites and I even thought Southland Tales had it's moments. I'm a HUGE sci-fi fan. I was very excited to see "The Box", couldn't wait for it to come out.<br /><br />Having said that..."The Box" is terrible. Behind "Drag Me To Hell", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.<br /><br />The biggest problem with "The Box", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I "got it", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans to her husband that they are "living paycheck to paycheck". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.<br /><br />There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.<br /><br />Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Thanks for reading! <br /><br />JD

A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10.

My thoughts on the movie, 9<br /><br />It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.<br /><br />This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?<br /><br />That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,<br /><br />"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.<br /><br />Okay... SPOILERS follow.<br /><br />So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. <br /><br />The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.<br /><br />The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. <br /><br />Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. <br /><br />They succeed.<br /><br />#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.<br /><br />The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. <br /><br />They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.<br /><br />Hunh?!?<br /><br />That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?<br /><br />Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.<br /><br />Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?

Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!

After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.

I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.<br /><br />But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.<br /><br />If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.

This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.

I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with "McCarthyism" and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.<br /><br />And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.<br /><br />That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy. <br /><br />Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was.

If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.<br /><br />This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.<br /><br />

The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.

I absolutely loved this show. I watched it from the time it first aired in the late 90's to the very last episode. In my honest opinion it was a wonderful family drama that is so rare these days. Definitely a show you could watch with a friend or your children. Yes things have changed a bit with Jo since we last saw her in the books, but it's still compelling with great stories and good lessons. The actress that portrays Jo Bhaer (Michelle Burke) does a wonderful job as does as the actor who plays Nick Riley (Spencer Rochfort) Throughout the series we get to see the developing romance between Jo and Nick as well as the daily stories and lessons the kids and students learn. I recommend this show to anyone.