Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.<br /><br />As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great.

Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.<br /><br />Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.<br /><br />By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL.

This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely "retarted", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again.

Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.

Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.

Combining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.<br /><br />The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.<br /><br />But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.<br /><br />Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.<br /><br />The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it.

I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her "nuna" (older sister). Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie, but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think, Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting/death/depressing stuff/incest?? 'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end.

There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question.

this film is absolutely hilarious. basically, the plot revolves around a serial killer being somehow turned into a snowman through some B-movie chemical accident. he then heads for town and starts terrorising the locals. its up to the local police chief and some other characters to try and stop him. its made on a wee budget and it certainly shows, but the great thing about this film is it knows that its rubbish. the improvisations of Styrofoam and polystyrene mimicking the giant killer snowman are classic, and this is clearly the intention - its one of the few films that has its budget as its main selling point. alongside the comic tackiness there are some other great comedy moments - listen out right in the beginning for the voice over of a dad scaring his kids to death, and the funniest rape scene ever committed to film. fantastic tacky fun

From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called " The Good Earth." It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. ****

I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.

As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)

If you are a six-year-old boy who's into dinosaurs, you will love this movie. If you are anybody else, you'll be rolling your eyes about every 15 seconds. If you want to start picking on things like the acting, the special effects, the dialogue, or the absence of a coherent plot that makes even the slightest amount of sense, you'll have plenty of material. If all you want is a safe dinosaur fantasy movie for your kid, it will do just fine. That said, there's a lot of kids' entertainment out there that's much smarter, and some of it is even bearable or enjoyable for adults. Unless your child is in an uncompromising dinosaur mood, you're probably better off looking for something else.

Watch The Beguiled because it's a good place to begin when you study the femmes fatales in Clint Eastwood's filmography.<br /><br />The smothering Gothic sexuality of The Beguiled has already been discussed. What everyone missed is the synchronized sexual physiology that occurs in a group of females living together, especially when a man is introduced into the group. They all become horny and then bitchy at the same time.<br /><br />Femme fatal filmography for Clint Eastwood: Inger Stevens, Hang 'Em High, 1968; Jean Seberg, Paint Your Wagon, 1969; Shirley MacLaine, Two Mules for Sister Sara, 1970; Geralding Page, The Beguiled, 1971; Jessica Walters, Play Misty for Me, 1971; Sondra Locke, Sudden Impact, 1983; Genevieve Bujold, Tightrope, 1984; Marsha Mason, Heartbreak Ridge, 1986; Burnadette Peters, Pink Cadillac, 1989; and the best heart-breaker of all, Meryl Streep, The Bridges of Madison County, 1995.

Blackadder 3 is probably the Blackadder series that people have least heard of - it has basically the same principles as the second and fourth ones and has nothing revolutionary in it. But it is still great - a fiery Duke of Wellington and a fat foolish Dr Johnson (writer of the first dictionary in England) make this series one to be reckoned with. There are still more hilarious one-liners to be delivered in this series, and it brings out the humour in a lesser-known era - in historically accurate and enjoyable episodes. Blackadder's third outing is not the most famous and well-known of the lot, but Rowan Atkinson's role as a butler to a stupid prince is a funny and effectively done one, and Hugh Laurie is at his best in this series. Very good! 9/10

1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.<br /><br />Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.<br /><br />I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.<br /><br />*My rate: 3/10

In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called "stickers". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.<br /><br />14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.<br /><br />Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.

BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.<br /><br />The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.<br /><br />It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.<br /><br />Vote: 7.5 out of 10.

This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.<br /><br />Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".<br /><br />This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.

This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it. <br /><br />Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.

I really liked Get Shorty, but this movie was completely disappointing as a sequel. First of all, Travolta does not in any way resemble the Chili Palmer from Get Shorty. He merely half-assed this performance as he has done in all of his more recent movies. He totally isn't smooth or have the mobster presence about him that makes you kinda root for him throughout the movie. It just seems like Travolta rolled out of bed and decided he was good to go for acting in this movie. The plot just wasn't exciting or clever, there really aren't any highlights that happen, the only thing that resembled entertainment was watching Christina Millian perform and The Rock was funny. But anyways, long story short, this movie was trash and I had to force myself just to get through it.

I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.

It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.<br /><br />The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.<br /><br />Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.<br /><br />2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".

I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.

A cheesy "B" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an "el" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film!

Outrage is pretty good movie! Robert Culp was very good in the movie and was perfect for the part! Its hard to believe that this is a true story but what can you do? When I watched this I thought why do they have to do all of those things. It isn't right but they learned their lesson when they picked on the wrong man! Anyway if you ever see this movie on TV watch it because its a good one!

This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them – a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." <br /><br />The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown – a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. – but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more – a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.<br /><br />The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed – for example – the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.<br /><br />Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind – he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that – when completed – bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.<br /><br />I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!

In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****

If the answer to this question is yes, then you should enjoy this excellent movie. I've just seen it a couple of hours ago here in Paris (where the action of the movie takes place)and I can still feel the huge trauma I received in the back of my eyes...What a visual shock ! I've never seen such a beautiful black&white photo and such a drastic change in the way of doing animated movies. I strongly believe there will a before and after "Renaissance", similarly to what we saw with Pixar movies or the Akira and GhostInTheShell experiences. This is a real breakthrough in the small world of animated movies and I hope this french initiative (a small unknown french studio with a few young folks who had a dream named "Renaissance"...) will receive the success and recognition it deserves. Vive la France !

This is one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like "Battlefield Earth" or "3000 Miles to Graceland"). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere.

This eloquent, simple film makes a remarkably clear statement about a teenager and his father. Though a theatrical release, it has a "made-for-TV" quality. We can attribute this to the director, John Frankenheimer, who learned his craft in the early days of live television in New York City. Indeed, he directed the teleplay on which the film is based, "Deal a Blow," on the CBS drama series "Climax." "Young Stranger" represents his Hollywood debut. After a hiatus of four years, during which he would do more television, he returned to direct "The Young Savages" with Burt Lancaster and, a year after that, "All Fall Down" with Warren Beatty and Angela Lansbury.<br /><br />The casting is competent with James Daly and Kim Hunter (particularly good) playing the parents of the title character performed by James MacArthur (his first theatrical film) who played the same role in the television version which was his first appearance on the small screen. Look for James Gregory and Whit Bissell in supporting roles.

Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.<br /><br />Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.<br /><br />So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.<br /><br />Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.

There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.<br /><br />This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.<br /><br />As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.<br /><br />I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.<br /><br />At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.<br /><br />If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?<br /><br />I don't think so.

The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.<br /><br />Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.<br /><br />Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.<br /><br />Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's "talents" other than drumming.<br /><br />Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.<br /><br />I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.<br /><br />Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff.

If it had been made 2 years later it would have been BANNED! The number one MUST SEE recommendation of the day!. The best Rouben Mamoulian film I have seen this far (have but have not yet seen J+H).<br /><br />There's no wonder why this film got less than 200 votes. A bigger greyzone that could not care less about what's proper would not be seen again until the 60's. As morally ambiguous and dark as 70's grit but with a certain charm as well. Of course this had to lay low in the later 30's and sadly it does not appear to have been re-discovered.<br /><br />Seriously. This got it all. Great actors: Gary Cooper, Sylvia Sidney and the this time not so lovable Guy Kibbee. And a mighty good director. This far I haven't been RM's biggest fans but I have liked his films a lot and with this he steps into a new league. One of the best 30's films I have ever seen! This is something I never thought even existed! 9.5/10

With the release of Peter Jackson's famed "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.<br /><br />The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.<br /><br />This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.<br /><br />The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as "Aruman".<br /><br />In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of "The Fellowship of the Ring" to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers". The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.<br /><br />Ralph Bakshi's version of "The Lord of the Rings" isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this "first great tale" of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel.

I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had there strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!

Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in "The '60s" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!!

IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- "This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it." You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following: <br /><br />(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.<br /><br />(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.<br /><br />(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.<br /><br />Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.

Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The "plot", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*<br /><br />The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.

I saw "Night of the Demons 2" first before I saw "Night of the Demons". Unfortunately, my old Blockbuster thought it was a good idea to have the sequel, but no first one. Looney, huh? Now, I think all horror fans need this movie. It's like McDonald's, you know it's bad for you and you'd rather have The Cheesecake Facotory(or whatever pricier restaurant you prefer), but you can't help but just wanting the cheap stuff.<br /><br />Night of the Demons has it all: your innocent, sexy, goes by the rules chicka-dee, your token black guy, that surprisingly doesn't get killed. You're slutty girl, you're slutty guy, you're dark girl or guy, the goof ball, the cheesy settings of a haunted house, bad acting, and lots of unnecessary nudity. Isn't this stuff great? I mean, I know deep down in my heart of movies that this was pretty bad, but it was a good bad for horror movies. Horror fans should enjoy and dig in!<br /><br />8/10

I'm originally from Brazil... the sad thing about this movie was the exploitation that was done to that boy. They told his life story and he never got one "centavo" (Brazilian cent) of that movie. Fernando is not the first and will not be the last to go through that life style in Brazil. Sad... but that is the world we live in. It's about making money not saving lives. Question is: Where is Fernando today? Most probably... dead. We tend to want to live in this "Disney filled fantasy bubbled life". When someone comes up to the plate to help... along comes the higher power and says: "What do I get from this? Where's my cut?" - I wish people's conscience would speak up!

Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix) <br /><br />Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies.

This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10.

Unspeakably discombobulated turkey, a mix of anti-Nazi musical (!!), pre-war Americana and Agatha Christie whodunit spoof with one big, big problem: it's deadly unfunny. Besides the single-digit I.Q. plot and dialog, the most amazing aspect of "Lady..." is the berserk casting. Gene Wilder (star AND co-writer) tries hard at it all: he plays a romantic lead (with his looks!! and his age!! he and Woody Allen should start a club for clueless, mirrorless ageing comedians), and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart, and tries to sing and dance, and succeeds in NONE!! A looong shot from his good old days with Mel Brooks.<br /><br />For a while I thought I was having a myopia fit, because everybody in the movie keeps saying Cherry Jones is this pretty hot chick, and that Michael Cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion!! The guy who plays Claire Bloom's male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies!! Mike Starr's over-the-top acting as the most incompetent, phoniest cop you EVER saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. The saddest note is to see wonderful Claire Bloom and Barbara Sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. At least I hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. No wonder acting prodigy Sukowa returned to Germany after she saw what Hollywood had in store for her!!<br /><br />If you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director, study this one - otherwise stay away!!! - 1/10

I somehow managed to make it all the way through this movie, but was dumbfounded by the complete lack of entertainment delivered. My friends and I are fans of HK film, but WOW. This movie has it all, and by all I mean everything a movie shouldn't have. Underdeveloped and stereotyped characters, way over-the-top overacting, cheesy special effects, talking robots, no less than 20 double-foot jumpkicks, impossible situations, unfunny "gags" and "jokes", elementary school premise, mindless killings, and too-long running time for the material. Throw in the fact that Gen-X Cops was a decent film and this movie becomes even harder to bear. Quite simply, if you're entertaining the idea of watching this film...don't.

It seems there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that "Five Characters" is one of the best episodes in the series and those who are so cool that they know it sucked because they were so clever and already predicted the "lame" twist at the end (which apparently, in their small minds, is the only reason the Twilight Zone exists: to come up with twists).<br /><br />There are plenty of lame episodes in the series and I'm not one to rate all TZ episodes ten. But this one is certainly one of those that merit such a rating. It is claustrophobic and colorful. The suspense is built up and we cannot wait for the reveal of the secret at the end. But whatever that secret is, what these people are, it doesn't really matter. Most of the beauty of the episode is to lead up to that. It would be just as powerful if we never find out what these strangers in a strange place really are.

I've now just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.<br /><br />I regret watching this film.<br /><br />Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently "White" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.<br /><br />Please stop making crap films

Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.

Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.<br /><br />A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.<br /><br />The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans. <br /><br />Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.

An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.

Ironically, what makes John Carpenter's "The Thing" such an entertaining sci-fi film are its genre-defying elements of mystery, suspense, and tight plot structure. It puts to shame such films as "Aliens" or "Armageddon" that are content to inundate the viewer with special effects while their plots revolve around stunts that butcher the laws of physics, testosterone-laden one-liners, heroes equipped with enough artillery to conquer Iraq, and pathetic attempts to inject "meaning" into the barrage on screen with "emotional sequences" that only serve to further insult the intelligence of the audience. The supreme tragedy, of course, is that these kind of lobotomized movies are also the most popular. I think that there is a cause for this, although it isn't very comforting. There is an increasing trend in our culture to passively "surrender" to the media -- to immerse oneself in the images we see without dedicating a single brain cell to comprehending the statement the work is trying to make. This mindset is becoming increasingly dominant in all arenas; even the once-hallowed print medium is being diluted, thanks to the abominable "reader response" theory that pervades our schools and the "tabloid brigade" that lines our magazine racks whose mentality appears to be infiltrating the once-venerable mainstream press. Nowadays, we just flip the switch and put our minds on "pause." Is "The Thing" a "good" movie? For the rare individual who still values his faculty of reason, a more appropriate term would be "entertaining." Its plot keeps one guessing, its ending is uncompromising, and it has some redeeming statements to make about human paranoia. Upon subsequent viewings, one begins to note a conspicuous lack of depth in the acting, but the taut storyline remains compelling. Of course, "Citizen Kane" it's not, but then again sci-fi never was a thinking-man's genre...

Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!<br /><br />How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!<br /><br />At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!

The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.

I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.<br /><br />Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.

When I first saw this film on cable, it instantly became one of my favorite movies. I'm a big fan of James Earl Jones and Robert Duvall. The movie paints an accurate picture of the South and the racist attitudes. Most of the attitudes came from Soll, an old plantation owner who uses convicts for labor. Soll is what makes the move, his funny ramblings give us insights in to the way The South was back then. I suppose that if Soll lived today he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. None the less his attitudes towards a little boy who comes to work for him and the convicts is complex. While he has racist views, he's grown to trust some of the convicts who are all black. The two convicts he trusts most are Jackson(Mel Winkler) and Ben(James Earl Jones). The conversations between Ben and Soll are the best in the movie, they have real chemistry. James Earl Jones and Mel Winkler both but in great performances as well as Hass.<br /><br />This movie should have gotten more notoriety. However it's on DVD and worth the money.<br /><br />Rayvyn

If one overlooks the technical problems of this early (1930) sound movie such as the sound quality and the occasional stiffness of John Wayne, one will find this movie to be an epic that is more realistic than almost any movie made since. Beginning at the Missouri, a large caravan of Conestoga wagons, people, and animals head west. The wagons are pulled down huge cliffs and cross a flooded river with considerable risk to the riders in the wagons. Indians meet with Wayne, and allow the train to pass through their land. Later, Indians gather west of the train to combat them. The wagons form a huge circle with horses and cattle in the circle, and fire their rifles creating with the circling Indians a veil of smoke.<br /><br />When the battle ends, the dead are buried on the spot and the people and wagons depart. This scene is remarkable, as the camera stays with the dead as the living depart. It is unique in the way it links the viewer with the dead and separates the viewer from the living. The wagons encounter a major thunderstorm with torrential downpours and mud everywhere. They finally arrive at their destination near a redwood or sequoia forest in Oregon. The film is done in 70 mm widescreen at about a 2.0:1 ratio (in 1930!).<br /><br />I haven't mentioned the plot because it is secondary to the scenic grandeur and the enormous amount of work involved in making this film. Moviemakers will never work this hard again to make such a movie or any movie. Given the technical limitations of the sound, the music is at times moving, such as when Wayne leaves his girl to hunt down his friend's killers and at the end.<br /><br />While all the critics rave about The Searchers and Wayne's psychology, racism, short temper, and complex characters, The Big Trail gives us a story of simple people encountering extraordinary hardships. One of the best westerns I have seen.

There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.<br /><br />There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.<br /><br />You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.<br /><br />But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie.

I don't understand the low 5.7 rating on this film. It's a delight for people who like a strong suspense plot and dark atmospherics. The tone is reminiscent of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, down to the locale (Savannah). The acting is strong, and I was amazed at the verisimilitude of Kenneth Branagh's southern accent. Famke Jansen is great, Robert Duval is effective in a small part, and Embeth Davitz is the BOMB. Great full nude scene of her,too.<br /><br />The plot is fairly standard but effectively executed.

An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can!

After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great "Queen's Own Buttler" with his song "Garryowen", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?<br /><br />An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.

The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.

Two dysfunctional brothers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) get tired of competing for who is the bigger f***-up and who Daddy (Albert Finney) loves more, so they hatch a hair-brained scheme to rob Mommy and Daddy's jewelry store so that they can clear their debts and start fresh. Sounds like a great plan except that this is a suspenseful 1970's style melodrama about a heist gone wrong, and boy, do things really go wrong here for our hapless duo and everyone involved. Lasciviously concocted by screenwriter Kelly Masterson and classically executed by director Sidney Lumet, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" uses the heist as its McGuffin to delve deep into family drama.<br /><br />Contrary to popular belief, Sidney Lumet is not dead. At age 83, he has apparently made a deal with the Devil to deliver one last great film. Lumet was at his zenith in the 1970's with films like "Dog Day Afternoon," "Serpico," and one of my favorite films of all time, "Network". He has somehow managed to make a film that bears all the hallmarks of his classics while intertwining some more modern elements (graphic sexuality, violence, and playing with time-frames and POV's) into a crackling, vibrant, lean, mean, and provocative melodrama. One can only hope that some of the modern greats (like Scorsese or Spielberg) who emerged during the same decade Lumet was at the top of his game will have this much chutzpah left when they reach that age.<br /><br />Lumet is a master at directing people walking through spaces to create tension and develop characters. As the cast waltzes through finely appointed Manhattan offices and apartments his slowly moving camera creates a palpable sense of anxiety as we never know who might be around the next corner or what this person might do in the next room. Also amazing is how Lumet utilizes the multiple POV and shifting time-frame approach. The coherent and classical presentation he uses makes the similarly structured films of wunderkinds Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu seem like amateur hour.<br /><br />Of course, what Lumet is best at is directing amazing ensemble casts and tricking them into acting within an inch of their lives. Philip Seymour Hoffman has never been, and most likely never will be, better than he is here. Albert Finney's quietly searing portrayal of a father betrayed and at the end of his rope is a masterpiece to watch unfold. Ethan Hawke, normally a nondescript pretty boy, is perfect as the emotionally crippled younger brother who has skated by far too long on his charms and looks. The coup-de-grace, however, is the series of scenes between Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, eerily on point as his flighty trophy wife. Lumet runs them through the gamut of emotions that culminate in a scene that is the best of its kind since William Holden taunted Beatrice Straight right into a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in "Network." <br /><br />The Devil of any great film is in the details, from Albert Finney's tap of his car's trunk that won't close due to a fender bender, to the look Amy Ryan (fresh off her amazing turn in "Gone Baby Gone") gives her ex-husband Ethan Hawke at his mawkish promise to his little girl all three of them knows he won't keep, to the systematic unraveling of a family on the skids, to the dialog begging for cultists to quote it (my favorite line being the hilariously threatening "Do you mind if I call you Chico?") to the excellent Carter Burwell score. "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is the film of the year. If something emerges to best it, then we know a few other deals must've been brokered with Old Scratch.

the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).<br /><br />The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.<br /><br />For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.

Stephen King TV movies can go 5 or 6 parts and no one complains, right? So why give the Stooges only 96 minutes? I'm not asking for a PBS mini-series, but would a two parter had killed anyone? The movie steamrolled over events that should have been mentioned and mentioned events that could have been omitted. I do want to give a salute to the performances of the stars...they had a tough job because they didn't really look like the Stooges, but the spirit was there. After watching the movie, I pulled out a tape from American Movie Classics that had the real deal on it and laughed myself silly. The movie was pretty tough emotionally, especially after Curly has the stroke and Moe needs to keep the business going. When Curley started crying I lost it...Like I said, the movie was good, but could have been and SHOULD have been much, much better. Maybe it's fitting though...the Stooges got ripped off when they were alive and now, 25 years later, it happens again.

I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)

I've watched this movie twice now on DVD, and both times it didn't fail to impress me with its unique impartial attitude. It seems more like a depiction of reality than most other Hollywood fare, especially on a topic that is still hotly discussed. Even though it sticks closely with the southern viewpoint, it doesn't fail to question it, and in the end the only sentence passed is that the war is lost, not matter what, and cruelty is a common denominator.<br /><br />What really makes this movie outstanding is the refusal to over-dramatize. Nowadays truly good movies (in a nutshell) are few and far apart, with mainstream fare being enjoyable (if you don't have high expectations), but terribly commercially spirited. I think this movie comes off as a truly good movie (without being a masterpiece), because it sticks to itself, and gives the viewer a chance to watch and analyze it, instead of wanting to bombard him with effect and emotion to blot out his intelligence. This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.<br /><br />The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy. Still she doesn't come off as weak, in fact I think she's one of the stronger characters, she's always in control of the relationships, with the men just tagging. And I take it very gratefully that she's not a weeping widow. I believe in the 19th century death of a loved one was something a lot more normal than now. You could die so easily of even minor illnesses and injuries, so the prospect of of someone dying, while surely causing grief, didn't traumatise people like it does now. People didn't seem to build shrines about their lost ones like they do now, and I like that attitude.<br /><br />My recommendation is for intelligent people to watch this movie, if they are in the mood for something different than the usual hollywood fare. Don't watch if if you want non-stop action or heart-renting emotion.

this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.

'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured<br /><br />1/10

Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, "That's it?" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it.

I thought this was an utterly charming film. The story seems to be a thinly veiled autobiography of John Waters: Pecker's greatest gift is his ability to find beauty in unexpected places. Edward Furlong does well in the lead, but the best performances are by his grandmother, Mink Stole (a hilarious cameo) and, of all people, Patty Hearst. I think the reviewers are way off base on this one. They seem to be taking Pecker's worst valuation of his work as gospel, when I think the film pretty clearly states that he is indeed a promising artist.

I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.<br /><br />Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.<br /><br />Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...<br /><br />On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.<br /><br />Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.<br /><br />It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.

Dr Mordrid is terrifying. I would not recommend any adult or child see this unless they are rampaging murderers already. There is so much filth in this movie it hurts my yes. Speaking of eyes, there are eyes in the sky, against a backdrop of stars. Only the devil himself could have imagined such a wicked thing. I rented out every copy i could from local video stores and crushed them with a 5 pound crucifix. That movie should remain locked in a cellar behind the 4th dimension with all the other disgusting beasts of hell. That is where this movie belongs. I suggest if you want some scandalous entertainment, go and rent All Dogs Go To Heaven, or Angels In The Outfield. Those movies are worth seeing. If you want to commit a sin and love terrible movies, you need to see Dr. Mordrid.

The girls might be prettier if you're their accompanist or a $#!+-faced onlooker. What I'm sayin' is that it'll take special circumstances for a non-whince reaction to this effort. The delivery of many lines appears to be distractingly unnatural for some actors. Lighting seems to be a problem, too, although failing eyesight may have accounted for my frequent squinting. And if you view this film, be open-minded enough to accept elements that no zoo or circus would reject: They are the above and below-ground creatures who feasted on dozens of campers near an empty Louisiana mansion. That's the discovery of a trio who is dispatched from their printed media to investigate the deaths. Then, two of THEM disappear, and the survivor is part of another threesome who take up the hunt. Eureka! I just realized what one of those aforementioned "special circumstances" would be - unconsciousness.

This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie! <br /><br />I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.<br /><br />The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.<br /><br />I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.<br /><br />This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.<br /><br />The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.<br /><br />JUST WATCH THIS FILM!

There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'. <br /><br />Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.<br /><br />There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.<br /><br />It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits. <br /><br />That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.

Great comedy from Charlie Chaplin. I've seen Chaplin's 4 major films (Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator), and I think it is easily the funniest of the four. This movie had me laughing more than almost any other I've ever seen. From the very opening disclaimer ("Any similarity between the Great Dictator and the barber shop owner is purely coincidental") the movie is a laugh-a-minute with a blend of wonderful slapstick and verbal humor. And at the same time, Chaplin manages to portray the evils of totalitarian persecution. Maybe a little short on the ending and the lasting timeliness of the subject matter, but easily a 9 out of 10 for me.

My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.

I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film.

Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.<br /><br />Really lame. Don't bother with it.

The storyline of this movie is cliché and obviously has been ripped off from Jurassic Park. The filmmakers didn't even try to hide that. It seems as though there was not enough budget to make decent dinosaur-dolls, so instead the viewer sees some robot-like toy-dinos (from a cheap toystore) which move in a very unnatural way. It's funny though, because it's so bad. The acting is almost as unnatural as the dinos are. No one seems really excited to be in this movie (which I totally understand). Especially the last half hour is extremely boring and it's almost impossible to watch it without falling asleep. The one positive comment note I'd like to make about "Raptor" is that it doesn't take a full 90 minutes.

We watched this on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC last night, and I came to the conclusion that things must be tighter there at "the Mouse" than usual. <br /><br />Since this movie only runs 74 minutes, and they had to pad it out to 2 hours of broadcast television time, they had, and I'm not making this up, commercial breaks that lasted 6 to 7 minutes. And during these commercial breaks, they had another advertisement in the guise of a "TV show" hosted by the oh-so-annoying Kelly Rippa that loudly proclaimed the magical wonders of "Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True".<br /><br />Again and again, break after break, Disney took time out of the real movie to tell us, the loyal viewers, that we needed to get a copy of the sequel. Thank you, Disney, for doing us the service of creating a sequel to your beloved gem of a movie.<br /><br />Anyway, all this commercialism and cash-register-ringing made it a difficult task to get into the actual movie of "Cinderella", because by the time the commercials were over, I had forgotten where the story had left off.<br /><br />But of course, the original "Cinderella" still maintains its magic, and the story is still a good one, though we've all seen it countless times. It's a shame they had to cheapen it with all the marketing for what looks to be a lame follow-up.

I've commented once on this Chucky great, but I had to do it again to say some things about the film, when I first saw it in a great balcony in a great theater. The film was a lot of fun in the theater and my first Chucky film ever in a theater, and that was a special moment for me, because I cherish Chucky. The other horror villains are referenced with GREAT COOLNESS!!! And the gore was shockingly great! The scene where the gay kid gets nailed by the truck was amazingly cheerful! That was a great gore scene!!!!! And the ending was so bizarre and shocking it made me s*%@ my pants. The idea of having the Seed of Chucky was very, very bizarre and shocking! When I left the theater I just loved it and I could'nt believe it was real. The bizarre and different qualities of this Child's Play installment for some reason made me mark it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Child's Play series. It just had that intensely shocking, bizarre and different quality that reminded me of Jason Goes To Hell. A sure ***** out of *****. Here's how I rank the series : 1,4,2,3. I loved it but not quite as much as Tom Holland's original Child's Play classic. I can't wait for Seed of Chucky! Bring it on!

This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).<br /><br />The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.

The movie has started, the wheels spin, your car has entered a race against the Fox.... You're behind you can't get in front, you figure, "if i go out, i'm taking you with me..." You smash into the cars parked on the side of the road, you turn to hit Fox but your aim is bad.... Bang, you've gone up the back of a VW, and smash you've landed in a reservoir. Your car lights on fire. You could get out if you wanted, but the shame of losing has taken you... BANG! Your car blows up, everyone looks on in despair, some crying... The sound of a siren tells you the cops are coming. Everyone gets in their cars and bolts, leaving you to burn. The charred remains of the cars frame sits there, haunting the on lookers... You're dead.<br /><br />This is one of the scenes; actually its the first scene in the movie. There are many more like it. As you enter the cockpit of the Fox in his pimped out V8 ford, Terry Serio in his crazy GTHO, and many others in this blast from the past.... JOHN CLARKS masterpiece, "RUNNING ON EMPTY" "-He'll win at any cost-"

Amazing, amazing, amazing. What more can be said? Jacobi is the best Hamlet ever to grace the stage and captures every inch of the character. Every nuance and element of Hamlet is depicted and depicted well. Some people have complained about his age, but you honestly cannot tell when watching the film. If anything, he looks drastically younger than 40. I only wish a more worthy Ophelia could have been found. Her acting is passable but she just doesn't look the part. The only real exceptional performances come from Jacobi and Stewart, who is a great Claudius. The rest of the cast is good, but Jacobi is what truly elevates this teleplay.

I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.

I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.<br /><br />For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.<br /><br />Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.

It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka

I picked up this DVD for $4.99. They had put spiffy cover art on the package, along with a plot summary that had nothing to do with the movie. The acting is terrible, and the writing is worse. The only possible way this movie could be redeemed would be as MST3K fodder. I paid too much.

An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film. No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film makers.

The premise of this anime series is about bread, of all things to base a plot on! I truly laughed. The main character has a special bread making power that he was born with, and he goes off to bread baking school. I wish it were available on DVD, and it doesn't matter if it's subtitled or dubbed - it's that good. Even the theme song alone is funny. At one point in the theme song, there's an African-Japanese man with an afro on horseback, wielding a French baguette as if it were a samurai sword. These images will not make sense unless you see the anime. You'll laugh until your sides hurt. It is definitely the most unique anime I have seen thus far.

This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.

Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.<br /><br />By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.<br /><br />This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.<br /><br />While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.<br /><br />The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?<br /><br />In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.<br /><br />In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?<br /><br />The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.

I'm 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are "You can't keep a good dog down" and that song about sharing, I think it's called "What's mine is yours". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 7/10.

This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series). <br /><br />Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10.

I love this movie. As a kid, this was one of the first movies I saw that made me flinch. Sure, it is mild now, but back in the day, it was awesome. Dentists are one thing so many people fear, so why not do a movie about a killer dentist? It's cheesy, it's fun, sometimes it's scary, but it is awesome. And I have always had a love for medical horror. And Corbin Bernsen plays Dr. Feinstone perfectly, no one could have done it better. And for a low budget horror film, the effects and such are quite good. And I also love the theme music, it goes well with the film. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) is also in this one playing a nosy cop, and does a fine job. There is a fair amount of blood, and some really cool torture/death scenes. Check this one out!

*SPOILER ALERT!! PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED!!*<br /><br />I was originally planning on seeing this movie this past weekend, but my plans ended up making me unable to have time to see it. So me & my friend made plans to see it after school today. Boy, are we glad we did. The movie starts off in Italy, with a planned heist with a group of guys (Charlie Croker [Mark Whalberg], Steve Frezelli [Edward Norton], Lyle, also known as "Napster" [Seth Green, you'll get the nickname later], Handsome Rob [Jason Statham], Left Ear [Mos Deaf], & John Bridger [Donald Sutherland]) plan a heist to steal 32 gold bricks. This leads to the whole opening, which is a good 10 to 15 minutes, and involves a boat chase, which opens the movie up right. While driving away in their get away van, Steve Frezelli turns on the group, steals the gold, and kills John Bridger, who is pretty much the (retiring) leader of the group. Fast foward to a year later, where where Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter, is one of the top safe-crackers that anyone can ask for. Charlie Croker (who was actually indirectly responsible for her father's death, as he called him out of retirement for the heist) says that they've found Steve (who has gone into hiding), and want to get back at him for what he did. She at first declines, but later agrees, and the teamgets back together, along with getting the help of Wrench (Franky G), a mechanic, to carry out the perfect heist, while creating one of the largest traffic jams in Los Angeles history. This movie is a perfect mix of action with funny bits thrown in throughout. There's an on-running joke about Seth Green's character, Lyle, creating Napster and how Shawn Fanning (who makes a cameo) stole it while he fell asleep, and eventually Lyle will only answer if refered to as "Napster". There's even a funny line in the movie by Seth, who goes "He said in an interview he called it Napster because it described his hair, like it was nappy. He callled it that because *I* was napping when he stole it!" The begining and ending sequences are pure genius, and everything in between fits perfectly. The only negative thing I can think of with the movie is that Edward Norton's acting was a bit weak. He wasn't a big, tough bad guy. He acted like he was being paid and just doing the bare-minimum (which is a fact, as he was forced to do this movie due to contractual obligation). But, even with that problem being the only real gripe with the film, the movie is still very enjoyable, and I definetly recommend seeing it. And even if you're not interested in the actual movie, go to see Seth Green shine in the comedic role. He's perfect. Rating: **** out of *****

Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie "The Mad Ghoul," "The Mad Monster" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as "House of Frankenstein" (1944) and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's "Teenage Monster"). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than "The Mad Monster" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!

I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.