Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

Exquisite comedy starring Marian Davies (with the affable William Haines). Young Peggy arrives in Hollywood seeking stardom. Cameo performances showcase "all the stars in MGM's heaven" in the famous commissary scene, plus lots of vintage film making detail for the scholar. Pic also captures for posterity Davies' famous, wickedly sarcastic impersonations of the top stars of the day (her Swanson is a beaut!).<br /><br />"Peggy," even catches herself as she encounters the famous star Marian Davies at tennis, turns up her nose and comments, "Ohh, I don't like her!"<br /><br />My print was perfect. Story, direction, acting an authentic charm and a must for all silent afficinados.

this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the "hot chick" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words "its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar." Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.

This is without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again!

The Brain That Wouldn't Die is one awful piece of film that stinks from the opening credits. It's got all the classic signs of being bad: unbelieveable plotline, terrible acting, low-grade sets and lighting. The plotline goes like this: When a doctor and his fiancee get caught in an accident, she gets decapitated and he picks up her head and takes her to his lab, where he sets up her head in a pan with some special liquid that keeps it alive. I'll bet Virgnina Leath, who played the head in a pan had to spend a lot of uncomfortable time wearing that pan around her neck and squatting under a table. Anyway, the doctor then tries to find her a new body, and hires two strippers so she can chose one to have her new body. Bad all the way through, so bad it was torn to pieces on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been "Banned in France". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the "Art House" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.<br /><br />From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to "Thelma and Louise" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).<br /><br />On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.<br /><br />I myself do not really understand why the repeated "porn-movie" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.<br /><br />It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.<br /><br />

"Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.<br /><br />Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.<br /><br />It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception.

Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.<br /><br />Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6.

If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.<br /><br />I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!<br /><br />In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you.....

Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like " My old Kentucky home" , and "Old black Joe". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected

The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.<br /><br />First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.<br /><br />Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.<br /><br />Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.<br /><br />Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces.

If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.<br /><br />The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.<br /><br />I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws: <br /><br />1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10) <br /><br />2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10) <br /><br />3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10) <br /><br />4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10) <br /><br />5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10) <br /><br />6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10) <br /><br />I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.<br /><br />(7/10)

Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.<br /><br />Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster! <br /><br />Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.<br /><br />For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.

Is this a bad movie? Don't take my word for it. Consider the following press reports of people who tried to watch this movie: <br /><br />· While he was watching this movie, the brain of Mr. Harold Faber of Sandusky, Ohio, forcibly ejected itself from his skull at over 200 kph and preceded to squirm across the floor shrieking NOOOO NOOO NOOOO.<br /><br />· Mrs. Louise Robbins of Enid, Oklahoma, a 69-year-old retired homemaker, committed ritual seppuko with a butter knife while watching this movie.<br /><br />· Ms. Janine Hosmer of Columbia, South Carolina, gave birth to a severely deformed baby while watching this movie, although she had not been pregnant.<br /><br />· While watching this movie together, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Wells of San Franciso, California, spontaneously exploded with such force that Mr. Wells's left tibia was later found embedded in the wall of a house in Marin County.<br /><br />There have been many similar incidents.<br /><br />Of those who did not suffers more serious effects such as those detailed above, at least 75% became incurably, violently, and understandably insane after viewing this movie. Of the remaining 25%, most had already been insane before viewing the movie; the remainder were either blind and/or and deaf or in a persistent vegetative state.<br /><br />I'm not saying don't rent it, if you want to. I'm just reporting what was in the papers.

Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.<br /><br />The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.<br /><br />As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.<br /><br />What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.<br /><br />(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)<br /><br />But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.

TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.<br /><br />This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!<br /><br />===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!

Corben Bernsen directed horror film about a chemical weapon being released in a sporting event and turning everyone in to insane monsters. We watch as the staff at a radio station takes reports.<br /><br />Its has moments but mostly it plays like a Lifetime horror movie with breasts and blood. There are some really good ideas here, but they just don't work. Actually the film's ideas are better handled in a film called Pontypool which pretty much works all the way through and builds tension by not showing us anything. This shows us stuff and it just seems cheap. Given the choice I'd watch Pontypool again rather than watch this film again.

Great film, a very worthy 7/10.<br /><br />Tom Hanks was at his usual best, the heavy drinking congressman who saved Afghanistan from its communist oppressors! Based upon a true story tells us how the West throws money and arms at a problem and expect it to go away. Well, it did go away, albeit temporarily. Look who we (the British, amongst others) are now fighting the very same people who the US gave arms, training and money to in the 80s.<br /><br />This film was always going to provoke political thoughts by the people who watch it, but it does portray a very nice story. However, once the main objective is achieved, i.e. ridding the communists from Afghanistan, it is seen how quickly the plight of people is forgotten about.<br /><br />This film was good, it was a well deserved 7/10. It told the story of the Communist invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent covert operation by the US to some detail and was dramatised well. Although being a good film, I will recommend it to people but some people will not enjoy it particularly is a serious film about good (US) v evil (Russia) isn't your thing!

All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.<br /><br />Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)<br /><br />Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).<br /><br />Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.<br /><br />8 of 10

I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.

I know this film has had a fairly rough ride from the critics, but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The real star here is the fantastic Dylan Moran. He never fails to be both hilarious and convincing in all of his varied disguises. He also manages to radiate a sweet charm that belies his outrageous pratfalls. Special mention must also go to Michael Gambon who plays for laughs with a brilliantly accurate and yet comedic inner city Dublin accent. The only weak link is Caine who, while obviously having a great laugh hamming it up, plays the least interesting and most unsympathetic character. It probably won't play that well overseas but it's well worth a watch all the same.

Jean Paget, Joe Harman, and Noel Strachan--all are unlikely heroes and survivors. Petite but strong Jean whose strength and resolve help save lives, marching hundreds of miles and with calm self-discipline and persuasive powers, Joe Harman ("oh my word") who took risks for Jean and the other prisoners, only to suffer the worst pain imaginable, and Noel Strahan, who trusted Jean regardless of the odds. Her good humor and hardiness inspire everyone around her, and those with the courage to go in with her are rewarded. The beautiful scenery and musical score adds to the adventure. Despite the length it was never boring to me. These ordinary people did extraordinary things and it is based on a true story. Someone borrowed my VHS a few years ago and I never saw it or them again. Learned my lesson, mates, and will buy another copy when it can be found. It's a shame the miniseries is not on DVD.

The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).

That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.<br /><br />But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).<br /><br />I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.

An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.<br /><br />This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.<br /><br />He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.<br /><br />I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.<br /><br />Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.<br /><br />That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.<br /><br />Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.

Othello is set to burn the eyes of the viewers of this film. The bad depiction of Shakespeare's characters, and the terrible rendition of the love that Desi & John had, made this movie the horrendous filth that it is. By far, Othello, directed by Jeffery Saks, is beyond mediocre and atrocious. <br /><br />The movie Othello is a pitiful drama about the love between John and Desi. Their faithfulness to one another will be tested by the man's friend. In the opening scene of the film, it is clearly shown that the love between John and Desdemona is inseparable beyond belief. Moments later, Ben Jago, John's friend pops out into the screen scaring the viewers and showing them right away how much of a liar and power hungry person he is. <br /><br />By far, this movie was much more horrid than the Shakespeare novel itself. With that being said, it does have a miniscule amount of good parts. For example, the love that was shown between John and Desi, was depicted very well and it looked that the couple was so inseparable; just as it was explained in the book. Although the love between them was shown exceptionally well, it still did not show the jealously that Othello had between Cass and Desi as well as it should. <br /><br />Love, jealously, deceitfulness, this movie is based on all three of the main topics that were in the Shakespeare novel. The novel however, really explains how all of this came together much better than the movie could. For example, the conclusion of this story ends much more differently in the book than in the film. Much more detail is also put into the novel. This is why this film is such a disappointment, trust me, those who have read it will find it disappointing as well. <br /><br />In conclusion, this film was by far, the most horrendous depiction of a novel that has ever been put out by mankind. By avoiding to see this film, not only will viewers save themselves an hour two of their lives, but also save themselves an eye or two from the distasteful face of Ben Jago popping out at them.

This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed "zany beauty".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. <br /><br />

This film could well have been one of those ordinary "soapies" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined…..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!<br /><br />Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asks…in this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.<br /><br />Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says… he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.<br /><br />This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role.

Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...<br /><br />--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.<br /><br />

This is one of those movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the fetish Shannon Doherty and smoking fetish arenas. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror/drama/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)

I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...

As someone who usually despises Ali G, Ali G Indahouse was absolutely brilliant. When I was watching it, I was in a hysterical fit. Yes it is sexist, rude and extremely crude, and I loved it. As some comedies are only have one or two comical scenes, this movie was laugh-a-thon. I have never seen a comedy as original as Ali G Indahouse.For a comedy starring Ali G, this would be worthy of an 8 out 10. Absolutely Brilliant.

I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!

You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!!

Sogo Ishii has taken the old myth of Musashibo Benkei and stood it on its head to produce a dark, gory, spellbinding and terrific-looking movie. Those unfamiliar with the legend won't need to be; the story explains itself nicely as it goes along. Well worth seeking out even though there are no English-language home video versions.

I think the deal with this movie is that it has about 2 minutes of really, really funny moments and it makes a very good trailer and a lot of people came in with expectations from the trailer and this time the movie doesn't live up to the trailer. It's a little more sluggish and drags a little slowly for such an exciting premise, and i think i'm seeing from the comments people having a love/hate relationship with this movie.<br /><br />However, if you look at this movie for what it is and not what it could have been considering the talent of the cast, i think it's still pretty good. Julia Stiles is clearly the star, she's so giddy and carefree that set among the conformity of everyone else, she just glows and the whole audience falls in love with her along with Lee. The rest of the cast, of course, Lee's testosterone-filled coworkers, his elegant mother-in-law, his fratlike friend Jim and his bride-to-be all do an excellent job of fitting into stereotypes of conformity and boringness that make Stiles stand out in the first place. <br /><br />Lee doesn't live up to his costars, i don't think, but you could view that as more that they're hard to live up to. Maybe that's one source of disappointment.<br /><br />The movie itself, despite a bit of slowness and a few jokes that don't come off as funny as the writer's intended, is still pretty funny and I found a rather intelligent film. The themes of conformity and "taking the safe route" seemed to cleverly align on several layers. For example, there was the whole motif of how he would imagine scenarios but would never act on them until the last scene, or how he was listening to a radio program on the highway talking about how everyone conforms, or just how everything selma blair and julia stiles' characters said and did was echoed by those themes of one person being the safe choice and one being the risky choice.<br /><br />The other good thing about the movie was that it was kind of a screwball comedy in which Jason Lee has to keep lying his way through the movie and who through dumb luck (example: the pharmacy guy turning out to be a good chef) and some cleverness on his part gets away with it for the most part.<br /><br />While it wasn't as funny as i expected and there was a little bit of squandered talent, but overall it's still a good movie.

Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a "romantic" drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.<br /><br />Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish it.

those people,who told me"this movie is good"-shame on them!this film is for an audience,who has no problem to watch everything{especially when it's all about tough guys,guns,chasing&heists}.i 'd compare this movie with"The Inside Man"{the same loss of time}. i'm tired of copy and paste movies.and i'm discontented,but what can i do?fans of that types of movies are much more.... if you want to watch good movie from that type ,i will recommend to you "Lucky Number Slevin". i'm not mean, i just dislike this movie{weak actors,weak script,weak action}.probably someone else will like it.many people-many tastes.HOWEVER FOR ME"CHAOS"IS TASTELESS!

I´ve been able to see this great movie at the Fantasyfilmfest in Berlin and when I went out of the cinema I felt like being drugged down *g*! I´ve really seen lots of movies and there are just a few I´d call perfect like Fight Club or Koyaanisqatsi! Subconscious Cruelty is now one of them! Half of the people watching it in Berlin went out of the room and I can understand this absolutely because it can be a real shock for someone living in his/her perfect world day by day dreaming his/her dreams not thinking bout the horror on our planet-in our life! I don´t think I have to describe the story of the film for you because of the people having already written on this page! It´s a movie that shows everything and more!!! Gets 10 points + from 10!!! It´d be cool if you people who have also seen it loving it would write me an e-mail!So far I haven´t met anyone as impressed and pleased by it as I am!!! Finally sorry for my bad english-I´m not a studied person (und das ist auch gut so!!! :-))))))

This will not likely be voted best comedy of the year, a few too many coincidences and plot holes. However we are talking about a movie where a hit-man and a white bread salesman become buddies so a few vagaries shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Brosnan is excellent in this role, gone is the wooden James Bond (a role he was wasted in). If he can maintain this kind of quality I hope he continues to make comedies. Greg Kinnear is also excellent as Brosnan's straight man. I've read a few negative comments in here about Hope Davis but I thought she was quite good as a mousy housewife with a dark side buried deep within. There are lots of good chuckles as Brosnan sleazes his way through and a few scenes where I nearly died laughing. My father (a consultant) nearly lost it when Julian describes himself as a "facilitator". Much like "Grosse Pointe Blank", another hit-man comedy, the humour can be very dark. If you are in to that be prepared to enjoy yourself.

OK heres what I say: <br /><br />The movie was excellent. I am a huge Nancy fan and I have read all 1-56 original books and I went on to read more. I am now on 96. Beware of villains giving this movie a lower grade than it should have. All clues point to a wonderful movie! I loved the whole thing. So what Nancy is in current time. She is still old fashioned like she is in the books! People who haven't read more than 5 books are complaining about the view of Nancy. I have read all of them and I think Emma is perfect and that Nancy was perfect. I found parts of the movie spooky. I loved the exciting car chases and get aways. I loved the clues. I solved the mystery myself! It was really wonderful. I suggest you go see it since people who have been complaining know nothing of A what a good movie is and B about Nancy Drew. Go see it. It may not be Oscar worthy but its really a good movie.

No movie could ever do justice to Faulkner's command of the English language. but they did a pretty good job here. Lucas Beauchamp is exactly the way I pictured him in the book, as is Chick. What the movie couldn't really go into was how Beauchamp wasn't liked by the Negro people either, because he was equally as stubborn. Not that it is a bad thing, but from my take on the book that was his attitude toward the world (yet, I got the feeling it was white society's racism that started it and it spilled over into Negro society, until that became his attitude toward everyone).<br /><br />the best part of the movie is that you get to see Yoknapatawpha county (actually, Oxford, Mississippi) exactly as Faulkner wrote about it (the film was made when Faulkner was alive and writing). It doesn't look that much different today. Because of this alone, the movie is worth a watch considering it is filmed in Faulkner's backyard. A true must see for Faulkner fans.

I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.

First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.<br /><br />With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.<br /><br />I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?

Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film

If you're going to look after a child, make sure they don't live anywhere near a graveyard. Especially if said kid has a habit of drawing gory pictures and disappears at night among the tombstones to see her 'friends'. But, our long haired heroine, oblivious to all the signs, shacks up with her family the Nortons, which include a strict father and a dullard older brother who becomes a love interest for our budding babysitter. Even more spooky than the zombie gang outside is the cast's tendency to talk even when their lips aren't moving, and for the words to not match the movement of their mouths. But enough of that.. domestic animals are being sacrificed, old ladies are having eyeballs torn out and the orchestra won't shut up during any scene, even the quiet ones. Oh, and the editor is having a day off going by the way the film drones on.<br /><br />In fact, it would been better if everybody involved had taken a breather, smelt what they'd signed up for and gone AWOL. Yes, I know it's hard to get into movies these days, but this sort of starter point is not one on your CV you'd want. If would be like a trainee farm labourer having a conviction for chicken molesting. Featuring one of the worst lead performances ever by the shrill Laurel Barnett, and another almost equally as bad by the charisma-free child actress Rosalie Cole (The next Dakota Fanning she ain't) the film meanders on and on with nothing but padding until we get what passes for a climax.<br /><br />This involves five or six members of the undead barricading our utterly useless heroine in a shed, while her bit of rough fends off these ghouls with a plank of wood, a one shell shotgun and whatever he can lay his hands on. But back up a minute.. earlier on they were in the car, and they accidentally discovered that the creatures found the noise of the horn so repellent they shuffled off at the sound of it. So do they stay where they are safe? No of course not, they run off to this abandoned building in the middle of nowhere, so the bloke can prove what a hardnut he is the girl can act like she's having a nervous breakdown.<br /><br />Finally, the film closes. It doesn't end, it just goes to a grinding halt. The main character wanders back to her vehicle covered in fake blood, as if nothing horrible had happened. But, my dear viewer, something horrible has happened. You have just sat through one of the most lamebrained, boring horror films you're ever likely to see, and lost 82 minutes of your life you'll never get back. Just think.. years from now on your deathbed, what you'd trade an hour and 22 minutes for just to spend a bit of extra time with your family. Sadly, it's already too late for me. Don't you make the same mistake :( 2/10

This noir may not be the best remembered film from the era, but it features a great mystery plot, the common noir atmosphere and some good performances from its lesser known cast members. Robert Siodmak, the talented director behind the mystery/horror classic 'The Spiral Staircase' directed this film two years earlier than the aforementioned film, and shows a real flair for creating a dark and brooding atmosphere as well as creating a plot that both intrigues and fascinates the viewer. Phantom Lady focuses on Scott Henderson; a man married to a woman he doesn't like. He picks up a lady in a big hat in a bar one night, and the two agree to a 'no strings attached' night of fun. However, he then returns home to find his apartment infested by police officers and soon finds out that the reason they are there is because his wife has been strangled with one of his neck ties! He's dismayed to find that no one he saw while with the mysterious woman can remember her, and naturally the jury sends him down for the murder of his wife. However, luckily for him his beautiful female employee gets on the case...<br /><br />The plot moves along nicely throughout, and unlike many of the better known noirs, this one features a few murders which make the proceedings more interesting. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that it was made in the forties and shot in black and white, I would swear Phantom Lady was an Italian Giallo! The central characters are all interesting enough, with Alan Curtis providing a good portrayal of the unfortunate victim, and Ella Raines being effective as the female impromptu detective. The real standout of the film, however, is Franchot Tone, who provides a memorable performance as the insane villain of the piece. The film also features a role for supporting actor extraordinaire Elisha Cook Jr, who features playing the drums in the film's most memorable segment. If I was to criticise this film, I would say that the identity of the murderer is revealed a little too early - although Phantom Lady does deserve some credit on that front for the original way it goes about it. The conclusion is satisfying and everything makes sense (which is amazing considering the unlikely plot line) and overall, Phantom Lady is surely one of the greatest and most under-seen noirs ever made!

Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.<br /><br />Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.<br /><br />Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)<br /><br />It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.<br /><br />The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.

This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of "Surface", a television show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects. <br /><br />Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a disappointment. "Surface" was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging. <br /><br />It is basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a television blend of "Jurassic Park" and "ET". The story begins as a puzzle as a crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be seen again). <br /><br />Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it hatches into an "ET" type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent, extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect their origin it all gets very tired and predictable. <br /><br />Jay R. Ferguson (a staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the Richard Dreyfuss character from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", so you know that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode. Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff "Jason Bourne" gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-day actuarial conference. <br /><br />Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent "Gossip Girl" fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance of this to their "teenage boy" target audience and the one positive thing they did with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a "first love" interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is gradually phased in. <br /><br />In retrospect they needed a third storyline to keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This is one of the movies that get better every time you see them. It's packed with so many original and unconventional ideas that you always find a new detail. As in Sabu's subsequent movies (I didn't see "Unlucky monkey" yet, but the other ones are as great) failure, chance and humanism play great roles. The cutting and Montage is inventive and artistic, without the movie being an "art" picture, but a highly entertaining one. When comparing it to "Run, Lola, Run" you have to keep in mind that "Dangan Ranna" was made some years before and was shown on German TV as early as 1997...so it's more probable that it served as inspiration for Tom Tykwer's movie, and not the other way around. Complementary to the other reviews I have to add that I like the acting and the ending very much. This movie is a lot of fun in many ways, and it manages to deliver a message without being annoying or pretentious.

I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.<br /><br />Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.<br /><br />None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.<br /><br />As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.<br /><br />I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.

If Family Guy offends you or you simply don't get the humor, unfortunately this show is making fun of you and the masses of overly religious, dull, and politically correct people in America. So put your morals aside and have fun with this show. FG is a hilarious mind opener on the reality of today's society. Whoever said this show is for a young immature audience is very mistaken. With all the references to old movies and politics 10-80 years ago, I couldn't imagine any young immature kid finding this funny. Family Guy is definitely for a mature open-minded audience who are not afraid to criticize American society. Hats off to Seth and the whole crew who were able to make this show happen.

Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow

Gilmore Girls is one of the funniest, most clever, sharp-witted, sarcastic and heart-warming television shows I've ever watched, (second only to my most favorite television show of all time, F*R*I*E*N*D*S). The quick pace and many pop-culture references can leave some viewers confused, but once you catch on to the ways of the Gilmores, you'll be hooked for life. Just some random comments, I recently (finally) began watching Season 6 and wow! It's one of my favorite seasons so far. I love the Luke-Lorelai thing and all the drama in the various episodes is (as always) exhilarating. The only thing I'm not so fond of is the surprising bad attitude and reckless actions Rory has suddenly 'adopted'. Unfortunately I don't find this very realistic and hope it's not just a way to stir up some more drama to keep the season going strong. All in all great season though and I can't wait for the next!!!<br /><br />~ Ashly a.k.a. "Tookie Clothespin"

I really enjoyed watching this movie! Only a few parts were slow, but it was only setting the mood and building up to the action. I thought this movie was very educational, it taught me more about my Croatian heritage. I also learned more about Louise Arbour, and I can say she has a very great influence on me. Time magazine named Louise Arbour one of the world's 100 most influential people in April of 2004. I recommend this movie to people that like historical movies (obviously). This movie was very dramatic, but still told the truth of events in the former Yugoslavia. Louise Arbour is a brave hero, and I'm glad they made a movie honouring her. If you see the movie, I hope you'll like it.

This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.<br /><br />Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.<br /><br />Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.<br /><br />Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.<br /><br />It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.<br /><br />If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.

... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10

Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and one 4. <br /><br />"This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia," we're told. "On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten." <br /><br />Davos was a top gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark. <br /><br />This somewhat cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and who reacts with violence and resignation. <br /><br />Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens. Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was 27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose, under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal. The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear Davos say, "Abel's gone. There's nothing left." It would be well worth watching Classe tous Risques to learn what he means. <br /><br />There are many fine French gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of Shadows.

I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .<br /><br />BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! ! <br /><br />No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.<br /><br />The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.<br /><br />Stale approach to a tired plot.

If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???

I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.<br /><br />To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.<br /><br />From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.<br /><br />This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.<br /><br />Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.<br /><br />[spoilers follow]<br /><br />Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, "He's finally snapped" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, "He drowned in his pool last night" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.<br /><br />The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.<br /><br />The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.<br /><br />The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.<br /><br />That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs.

"Blame it on Rio" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.<br /><br />The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.<br /><br />This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.<br /><br />Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.<br /><br />Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video

As a serious marathoner, I was seriously disappointed in this film. Its target audience is clearly those who have never run a marathon, or novice marathoners. Following the stories of 2 first-time marathoners, one senior, one injured runner, and two elites as they prepare for the Chicago marathon, the film dedicates the majority of its attention to one female beginner whose story is, for lack of a better word, boring. While I did enjoy the brief glimpses into the training sessions of Deena Kastor, the brief history of the Boston marathon and marathoning in general, let me emphasize: These were brief!! Watching some Joe Runners prepare for a Saturday run with their water bottles and talking about how they view the marathon is not inspiring, and the nonstop clichés about achievement and feel-good grinning runners will make you wish the film were about an hour shorter. If you are a first-time marathoner, this film may give you a feeling of "I can do it." For anyone else, run away.

Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and: <br /><br />1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.<br /><br />2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.<br /><br />3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.<br /><br />4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.<br /><br />5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.<br /><br />6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.<br /><br />7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.<br /><br />An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.<br /><br />2 out of 10.

This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).

Treading Water is a very beautiful movie. I would put it straight under the wonderful short movie : Cosa bella from Fiona MacKenzie. It's not only about coming out but also about tolerance and acceptance in general. I am looking forward to seeing more of Laurel Himmel's work in the future. The actors, Angie Redman and Nina Landey are quite good. The main characters relationship could have been strenghtened a bit as we understand there is a very strong bond between them but maybe this could have been explained a bit. I am surprised that Angie Redman doesn't appear much in other movies. A great first step as a director for Laurel Himmel, I am sure there's more to see from her skills.

I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, "The Mascot" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is "Vampyr". "The Mascot" isn't a "bonus feature"-- it's tacked on as a chapter in "Vampyr". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I"m at it, "Vampyr" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.<br /><br />Dude A: "We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!" Dude B: "Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter." Dude A: "You're awesome, Dude B." The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.<br /><br />Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be "Criterionized" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5.

This was excellent. Touching, action-packed, and perfect for Kurt Russel. I loved this movie, it deserves more than 5.3 or so stars. This movie is the story of an obsolete soldier who learns there is more to life than soldiering, and people who learn that there is a time for fighting, a need to defend. I cried, laughed and mostly sat in awe of this story. Good writing job for an action flick, and the plot was appropriate and fairly solid. The ending wasn't twisty, but it was still excellent. If you like escape from New York, or rooting for the underdog, this movie is for you. Not an undue amount of gore or violence, it was not difficult to watch in that respect. Something for everyone.

This movie is just like every other dutch movie, so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) Zomerhitte starts strong enough, but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. There's a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive), the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers), and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody's eye out...it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying "did you hear what happened...I was there"). the only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice...that's it. And the reason I saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in Holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews, you pay less money then for a regular movie and you don't know what movie it is that you will be watching. All you know is that it's a new movie that's not yet in the theaters). My advice is to stay far away from this film, if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek.

From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!"<br /><br />The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!<br /><br />The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!<br /><br />The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!! <br /><br />This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America"

A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.<br /><br />The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes.

Director/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.<br /><br />What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape "bad boys" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it.

There are spoilers but trust me, I'm doing you a favor.<br /><br />My friends and I like to watch crappy movies every so often. Inspired by Mystery Science Theater and our knack for on the spot jokes; We set out to find movies worth watching that are in fact...not worth watching. However trouble comes into paradise when these movies can only be found if you buy them. And I am a firm believer in not giving one cent to such a group of talentless scumbags. So, as another reviewer has said, films like this are a reason why downloading movies for free should be legalized. I prefer the idea of; instead of straight to VIDEO you have straight to INTERNET. That way the ass-bags who made this travesty won't ever turn a profit. Which unfortunately you know they do. They hire a bunch of actors who can't act, special effects from a high school classroom, rubber snakes you can get at the dollar store, constant vomiting of green jell-o, and the two main characters who seem to switch between being border jumping Mexicans who only speak Spanish, to Arabs to being 100% fluent in English, random nudity, a guy being shot like 10 times including one to the side of the head and living and the most retarded ending in the history of film, book, cave drawings and hustler magazine. The fact that I actually predicted that the jell-o puking snake girl would actually TRANSFORM into a snake about half way through terrifies me...<br /><br />Anyways, the movie is great to make fun of, but you have to make sure there's at least 4 of you and you're all spitting out jokes in rapid fire, because if there's even 1 second of watching this movie where you're not laughing your ass off, you will feel physically ill. I kid you not. My friends and I were eating chicken wings and now I can't even look at such a thing anymore without being reminded of this piece of Sh!t.<br /><br />This film is one above Alien Vs. Hunter which is by far the second worst movie ever made. And I've seen lots of bad movies. Incidentally, it's the same production company as this film and that bald guy is in both as well. just thought you might like to know that little fun fact. -100 out 0f 10.

OK, what to say about Actium Maximus...<br /><br />There are some bad movies that are so horribly awful they circle 'round to awesome. There are bad movies that just suck in their own right. There are good movies, and so-so movies, and movies that are just fun. Then there's Actium Maximus. You can't make a spoiler for this movie because to do that you would have to understand the action enough to comment. This particular movie is worse than Turkish Star wars one and the sequel too. Those movies are so bad they circle 'round to awesome and they make you feel drunk even if you're stone cold sober. Actium circles 'round from bad to awesome, but then it doesn't stop there, it takes another trip to badville, then 'round again to awesome, then finally it sets up a little feudal kingdom on the border of "Bad" and "stock footage of paint drying while a harpy screams incoherently." If you are into self punishment this movie is for you. It actually will cause your brain to hurt.

I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.

The sort of "little" film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a "soul" version of the more well-known "The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells". Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold.

Chuck Jones's 'Rabbit Seasoning', the second in the much beloved hunting trilogy, is often considered to be the best of the three. While I find it almost impossible to choose between this trio of fantastic cartoons, I would have to concede that 'Rabbit Seasoning' is the most finely honed script. Here, the emphasis is placed on language as Bugs and Daffy run through a series of complex dialogues in the grand tradition of Abbot and Costello's 'Who's on next' routine. As a long term Daffy fan, I have always been delighted by the hunting trilogy because it is consistently Daffy who gets all the best lines (the famous "Pronoun trouble" being one of the all time classics) and does most of the work. Bugs plays the role of cool manipulator while Elmer, as always, is the befuddled dupe. Part of what makes the hunting trilogy so much fun is that Daffy and Elmer pose so little threat to Bugs that he is basically just kicking back and having some easy laughs. Elmer falls into every trap that is laid for him but it is poor old Daffy who comes off worst, being shot in the face again and again, his beak ending up in more and more ridiculous positions. It all builds to the inevitable climactic declaration "You're despicable". As intricate an example of Chuck Jones's impeccable timing as you'll come across, 'Rabbit Seasoning' is a true classic.

More of a near miss than a flop, MR. IMPERIUM stars Ezio Pinza as Alex, heir apparent to and later king of a small European nation, who falls in love with a willing American actress and entertainer, Fredda Barlo (Lana Turner), but due to machinations by the sly prime minister of Alex as king, nicely played by Cedric Hardwicke, the lovers are separated for 12 years before being reunited in Palm Springs where their love is rekindled. Director Don Hartman, who also scripts, is not able to fully utilize his talent for snappy dialogue because of Pinza's tentative English usage, and the requisite rewriting, coupled with less than total rapport in evidence between the two stars, results in a somewhat raggedy tone to the screenplay, exacerbated by the studio's unkind cutting of many scenes, leading to a confusing ending. The overpowering Pinza dominates his scenes with Turner, but both performers score with good work, while Marjorie Main is impressive with her patter effects as written, with Debbie Reynolds placed on track by Louis B. Mayer for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as a result of her sprightly performance here; only Barry Sullivan is heavily victimized by the flagrant cutting. Prettily filmed largely in Pebble Beach, California, and other Monterey County environs, the film is endowed with Pinza's iron strong operatic basso in Solamente Una Vez, as well as with original songs by Harold Arlen and Dorothy Fields, with Douglas Shearer splendidly handling the sound recording, and notice must be made of the fine set decorations by Edwin Willis, and the effective costume designs by Walter Plunkett.

Two of Hollywood's great child stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney) are perfectly teamed to deliver one of the all-time family classics. The story of a determined 12 year old girl, whose adoration for horses won't allow her to turn away from her goal to win the British Nationals. Mickey Rooney is the newly orphaned drifter, looking to tie himself over until he can follow his own dreams.<br /><br />A beautiful side plot reveals that the girl's mother had ambitions of her own as a young girl. Repeatedly overruling the father's decisions in favor of their spirited daughter, it is mother who seems to know best. The scene where the exhausted Taylor rushes to go to school is priceless: father protests "why did you let her go to school, she'll drop from exhaustion before noon!" - Not to worry, she'd be back within a half hour; it was Saturday! The brilliant Technicolor, the sumptuous music score, and those beautiful faces, all telling a bittersweet story. Here's a good reason for the old saying: They don't make'm like that anymore!

I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting.

If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.

I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.<br /><br />As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster.

The H.G. Wells Classic has had several Incarnations. The 05' Speilburg Version and the classic 53' version But only this one stays completely true to the book. Nothing is changed nothing is removed.<br /><br />Originally Released as a 3-hour film. The director Re-Cut the film down to 2-hours of pure excellence. Its got a chapter by chapter visualization of the novels pages that "Wells would be Proud Of" The story is as everyone remembers. Martians Invade the Earth with Capsules containing an army of Tripod walking War Machines. The people of 19th century earth are ill-prepared to repel the alien forces and fight back with canons and guns who mes shells bound right off the Walkers and when humanity is no longer a world wide power they are saved by the smallest of organisms on earth.<br /><br />The Film is an excellent accomplishment for director Timothy Hines who has great potential as he brought this vision to life with a meager 5 Million budget. Today B-Movies have larger budgets.

A film about the Harlem Renaissance and one author in particular. It contrasts it with a modern day story about a young, gay, black artist.<br /><br />If that sounds vague it's because the movie itself is. It's well-directed, fairly well-written and (for the most part) well-acted. Also the scenes in the past are shot in moody black & white. Also this is one of the few film dealing with gay men that does NOT shy away from sex scenes (not that explicit and no frontal). Still, I mostly hated this.<br /><br />The film meanders all over the place, is full of unlikable characters (including the main protagonist) and (this is the killer) moves at a snails pace. Three times I considered leaving the theatre because I was so utterly bored. But the director WAS there so I stayed. <br /><br />His talk afterwords shows this was a labor of love and took 6 years to complete. I really wish I could like this more (there are VERY few films dealing honestly with gay blacks) but I can't. Unless you're very interested in the Harlem Renaissance there's no reason to see this.

The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's "documenatry" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama "The Game of their Lives" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to "TGOTL" *** out of ********** on "Decade". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve

The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...

I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T "go there" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of "why???" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary.

"Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums." Laughs throughout the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall.

In & Out made me want to vomit. I have never seen such a shameless film! It seriously wanted to say that being gay is something wonderful and joyous, but has no idea how to say it. To me this was not a comedy, unless cruel,sick jokes are something to laugh at when a victim falls for it.<br /><br /> From what I saw, this film had four (4) major flaws starting with (A) Matt Dillion's character as he announces to the world that is former teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is gay. Never mind how unbelievable it is that Matt Dillion character won an Oscar for what looked like a serious role on the edge of a crack-up. But why would he say such a thing? After all, this was never an issue with Howard's students, his friends, family, nor his finace. Nobody. So why would he say something like it when it wasn't true? More to the point, why doesn't the movie supply us with an answer as to why he said it? The reason is because there is NO answer, and for the convenience of the plot none is provided. The second (B) flaw is with the fact the film seems to have forgotten what homosexuality is--the attraction and sexual relation to members of the same sex. In this movie, being gay is based on liking Barbara Streisand musicals and being passionate about literature. It's all based on stereotypes!<br /><br />Both of these flaws are met up again at that must-be-seen-to-be-believed graduation ceremony. Matt Dillion finds out about the commotion going on in that small town and the film looks poised to let us know what made him say such a thing. When he arrives to the ceremony, he says nothing, and I wondered why in the world he then came there at all. He didn't solve anything. Then when all of the audience stood to announce they were gay, I was so moved I wanted to throw up! Those folks were standing up in defense of Howard being gay by mocking all of those stereotypes. What the film forgot is that it was using those stereotypes to show why Howard was gay. They filmmakers just shot themselves in the foot! But wait there's more!<br /><br />During the ceremony,(C) Howard appeared to be on trial to lose is job as a teacher, because people believed that he would influence his students to be gay. What the film was trying to say is that homosexuals NEVER recruit, and that he wouldn't influence his students. But did we not see Tom Selleck's character endlessly pressure Howard over and over again, even to the point of kissing him unexpectedly, to come out of the closet when, in my mind, there was no closet to come out of? From that, the film clearly show that homosexual are capable of recruiting. The film, again, then shoots itself in the foot.<br /><br />And (D) when Howard came out of the closet, did anyone not notice how the screenplay shut him up for the rest of the film? I counted only three lines he had afterwards: "Yup!" to his parents, "Hi there!" to a student, and "Are you ready?" to Tom Selleck before the last vomitous scene. I might be low by one, but the point is he is not allowed to tell us what made him decide he was gay. I wanted to know what was in his head, because I never for once believed he was gay.<br /><br />As bonuses, the movie also includes several truly offensive scenes. One in which Howard is asking a priest in confession for advice about what to do for a friend (him), who is engaged and has not yet had sex with his fiance. "Does that make him gay?" he asks. The priest responsed "Oh yes, he's definitely gay". Uh-huh. Or what about the scene when all the old ladies are gathered around telling Howard's mother that she doesn't need to be sad about her son's deep, dark secret because, well...everyone has them. Then one the ladies confessed that she's never seen "The Bridges of Madison County". Funny? No! Becuase the film shows that it is insensitive and has no idea how devestating it can be to family to have one of its members announced that he/she is gay. I know. I have several friends that are gay, and none of their families took it well at all. That was a poor way to diffuse the whole situation.<br /><br />The last straw for me was the last scene that gave they appearence that Tom and Kevin were getting married. The camera panned down very slowly to the front of the church when... It wasn't what you thought! I had been thoroughly disgusted by that point, and I never could forgive that sick joke. I have nothing against films about being gay or homosexuality. "Philadelphia" and "Longtime Companion" were very honest and true in what they had to say. "In & Out" is just screaming for political correctness, but has no idea of the corruption at its core. what I gathered from the film is that if you are 99% straight and 1% gay, meaning if you have the slightless doubt, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. It's like gayness is becoming a dominant trait in genetics. In reality if everyone told you over and over that you were worthless and stupid, you would eventually believe it too, wouldn't you? This is what happened to Howard Brackett about being gay. I left the theater sad and angry. Angry the whole weekend, in fact. This was a seriously sick and cruel film, the WORST of 1997.

I liked this movies. Its a another Yash raj film which you know will look good on screen, all character are always nice or very nice with one exception who you know will eventually covert to being nice... Another rule of Yash raj's film is that either hero or heroine;s have only one or none parent. Think back to all of those films.. MPK Suman didn't have mom, HMAPK Salman didn't have parents, AND FINAL rule is that you are 90% likely to see Alock Nath crying...<br /><br />The film is good too. Its a bit slow at first but keeps you entertained. There is almost no comedy but it does make you smile often enough. The little kid (hero's nephew) is well placed and deliver very good one liners. The actress is very pretty but shy you wouldn't get that in real life. this film doesn't have massively big happy families living in BIG house which I thou was a good Idea and allowed the film to be differentiated from other films. There will be lots of women crying at the end of the film. There isn't a strong message from this film but its a good watch. If you are married (arranged marriage)the film will remind you of what you went through. And if you are not it will inform and may be scare you ...<br /><br />Overall a very good looking film. No big plots or twists but a very gentle film, very much like Bollywood classic.

Some may think Imaginary Heroes is a movie exactly like "Igby Goes Down" but it isn't. In Imaginary Heroes, the director lets us feel for the Travis family and the people around them.<br /><br />The movie itself is great, and the acting is extremely well done. Weaver's and Hirsch's acting is believable and helps make the movie what it is. The actors, director/writer, Dan Harris, has made a movie that many people should see. Don't think this is just another teen movie, it is a movie about a family and their problems.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 10/10 because I believe it isn't the best film, which no film can be, but its the closest it can get to perfect.

Several years ago the Navy kept a studied distance away from the making of "Men of Honor," a film based on the experiences of the service's first black master chief diver's struggle to overcome virulent racism. Ever eager to support films showing our Navy's best side the U.S.S. Nimitz and two helicopter assault carriers, with supporting shore installations, were provided to complement this engrossing tale of a young sailor's battle with uncontrollable rage. Some of the movie was shot aboard the U.S.S. Belleau Wood.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher wrote the script for Denzel Washington's director's debut in which he stars as a Navy psychiatrist treating Fisher, played effectively and deeply by Derek Luke.<br /><br />Fisher is an obviously bright enlisted man assigned to the U.S.S. Belleau Wood (LHA-3), a front line helicopter assault platform. Fisher can't seem to avoid launching his own assaults at minimal provocation from his fellow enlisted men. Sent to the M.D. as part of a possible pre-separation proceeding, Fisher slowly opens up to the black psychiatrist, revealing an awful childhood of great neglect and shuddering brutality.<br /><br />The story develops as Fisher cautiously but increasingly trusts his doctor and gets the courage to pursue a love interest, an enlisted sailor named Cheryl, played by a stunningly beautiful Joy Bryant.<br /><br />Fisher reluctantly engages with the doctor by asking long simmering questions but soon realizes he must seek the answers, however painful, in order to grow and move away from conflict-seeking destructive behavior.<br /><br />While all the main characters are black, this story transcends race while unflinchingly showing the evil of exuberant religiosity and concomitant hypocrisy in foster family settings. Viola Davis, a versatile actress seen in a number of recent films, is a picture of sullen immorality but is nothing compared to foster mom, Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson), who in short but searing scenes would earn - if it existed - the Oscar for gut-churning brutality.<br /><br />Films about patient-therapist interaction follow a certain predictability (all that transference and counter-transference stuff) but the earnestness of Fisher and his doctor/mentor is realistically gripping. It's a good story, well told. Period.<br /><br />While set in the Navy, "Antwone Fisher" is not in any real sense a service story as was "Men of Honor," an excellent movie that dealt with crushing racism directed against a real person. Nor is it truly a film about blacks. It's about surviving terrible childhood experiences and, as Fisher says, being able to proclaim in adulthood that the victim is still "standing tall." The persecutors shrink in size and significance as a brave and strong young man claims his right to a decent life with the aid of a caring doctor.<br /><br />My only quibble is that Washington is a lieutenant commander but is addressed as commander. With all the Navy support people listed in the end credits, someone should have told Director Washington that his character, like all naval officers below the rank of commander, is addressed as "Mister." Not a big criticism, is it? :)<br /><br />I don't know why this film is playing in so few theaters. It deserves wide distribution. Derek Luke may well get an Oscar nomination.<br /><br />8/10.<br /><br />

These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.<br /><br />The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.<br /><br />The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!<br /><br />The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!<br /><br />The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(<br /><br />Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". <br /><br />Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!<br /><br />Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!

If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.<br /><br />Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.<br /><br />One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.

First of all I saw this movie without knowing anything about it I just knew that Joel Schumacher did it and that was enough for me. A friend and I went to see it at a Danish film festival called the night-film festival which is a lot of different movies shown after hours the festival pretty much specializes in showing movies that wouldn't otherwise be shown in Danish theaters.<br /><br />Anyway My friend and I went to see it and we were astonished at how real it seemed and that it really struck a cord with our feelings, we really got caught up in the plot without being able to figure out the ending which is a great plus in our book.<br /><br />The film is recorded in a style that reminds me of the Danish initiative "dogma 95" which was started by 4 Danish directors including Lars Von Trier (Dancer In the Dark).<br /><br />In conclusion the movie is really worth seeing it gives a different perspective on how things were for the American G.I. Joe coming out of school being expected to serve their country in battle a long way from home.<br /><br />Also Colin Farrell is exceptional in this movie I haven't seen him before but I can't wait to see more of him.<br /><br />Lars P. Helvard

It is the first time I can recall where an adaptation did exactly like the book... In fact, only jokes were added to the story rather than content blended or removed!<br /><br />Such as the Egyptian slave Cellularis who had difficulty transmitting, um, communicating, LOL! Or when Tidivinnus was played like a quasi-Sith Lord and got annoyed when the Roman Empire endured a blow, the general ordered for the Empire to..? Ah, watch the movie folks!<br /><br />I can easily believe that this picture was one of the most expensive in French Cinema History and for my part it was worth it, Depardieux was excellent as the Roman bashing and Boar chomping Obelix. Clavier playing the little indomitable Gaul was perfect and a far cry from his days as the bumbling squire of Jean Reno in "Just Visiting."<br /><br />The fight-scene between Artifis and Edifis was hilarious and was nice to see the Matrix theme was not borrowed to despoil an otherwise perfect battle!<br /><br />Redbeard the pirate and his crew almost stole the picture, from scuttling their own ship to being the engine for Otis' (Edifis' Assistant) invention used at the very end.<br /><br />I understand there's Asterix and the Olympics with many of the same team back, by Toutatis, I plan to view that too!

First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.<br /><br />This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.<br /><br />Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.<br /><br />Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.

Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).

There was nothing else on tv yesterday afternoon, so I thought "okay, let's watch this." I didn't know the plot and I had no expectation whatsoever, I was thinking in a few minutes or so I will channel surf again. But then story started to unfold, and the characters played beautifully by the two boys. The story did have unrealistic parts and scenes, but overall it was a real good movie. Very well worth watching.

The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.<br /><br />Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.<br /><br />What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.<br /><br />Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.<br /><br />The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.<br /><br />If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.<br /><br />So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end – this is like an X-Files episode on steroids.

I have read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great.