Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

Even longtime Shirley fans may be surprised by "Now and Forever." The movie was filmed with Paramount studios – not with Shirley's parent company Twentieth Century Fox – in 1934, before Fox producer Darryl Zanuck had perfected the successful Shirley formula (cute songs, cold hearts for her to melt, young couples for her to play cupid to, happy endings). Thus "Now and Forever" falls into the category of a Shirley vehicle without the standard Shirley story. It is an awkward position for any movie, but this impressive, talented cast makes it work.<br /><br />Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard star as fun-loving, irresponsible con artists Jerry and Toni Day. The only thing that this devoted yet dysfunctional duo seems to hate more than being together is being apart. When they are suddenly landed with custody of Jerry's young daughter Penny (Shirley Temple), it is Toni – and not Penny, as many believe – who persuades Jerry to give up his criminal career. But Jerry flounders at his desk job, and desperate to prove that he can provide for his new family, he soon returns to thieving and dishonesty. In a standard Shirley device, Penny tries to melt the heart of crusty curmudgeon Felix Evans, the victim of one of Jerry's cons, but her attempt fails, for Evans is revealed to be a con artist himself, and he blackmails Jerry into helping him steal jewels. The drama, gunfight, death, and sorrow that follow all make this film a very unusual one for Little Miss Sunshine. There is no happy ending, no dancing, and only one song sequence (the cute number "The World Owes Me a Living").<br /><br />But this does not mean that Shirley fans should avoid "Now and Forever." Rather, it's divergence from the usual Shirley story make it more interesting and memorable than many of her other films. But beware: You should avoid colorized version of this film, and see it in black-and-white if you can. The color is bright, garish, and unrealistic, and in many scenes, Shirley's famous curls are actually red instead of blonde. Yikes!

The quote I used for my summary occurs about halfway through THE GOOD EARTH, as a captain of a Chinese revolutionary army (played by Philip Ahn) apologizes to a mob for not having time to shoot MORE of the looters among them, as his unit has just been called back to the front lines. Of course, the next looter about to be found out and shot is the main character of the film, the former kitchen slave girl O-Lan (for whose portrayal Luise Rainer, now 99-years-old, won her second consecutive best actress Oscar).<br /><br />The next scene finds O-Lan dutifully delivering her bag of looted jewels to her under-appreciative husband, farmer Wang Lung (Paul Muni), setting in motion that classic dichotomy of a man's upward financial mobility being the direct inverse of his moral decline.<br /><br />For a movie dealing with subject matter including slavery, false accusations, misogyny, starvation, home invasion, eating family pets, mental retardation, infanticide, exploited refugees, riots, civil war, summary mass street executions, bigamy, child-beating, adultery, incest, and insect plagues of biblical proportions, THE GOOD EARTH is a surprisingly heart-warming movie.<br /><br />My parting thought is in the form of another classic quote, from O-Lan herself (while putting the precious soup bone her son has just admitted stealing from an old woman back into the cooking pot after husband Wang Lung had angrily tossed it to the dirt floor on the other side of their hut): "Meat is meat."

I am from Texas and my family vacationed a couple of years ago to Sante Fe with my brother. He suggested we go to see the church with the staircase. I was absolutely blown away by the miracles that took place there. The movie is great - Barbara Hershey and William Petersen were perfect for the parts they played. It is amazing, absolutely amazing. If you have not seen the staircase in person, it is worth the trip to go see it. The wood is beautiful and the architecture is astounding. Just being in the chapel gives me goose bumps! To read about the history of the chapel, and then to see its beauty is breathtaking. See the movie - it is GREAT! Then see the staircase in person!

One of the worst movies I've ever seen!!! Absolutely awful. Poor acting, poor story, there isn't one redeeming quality about this movie to recommend. Amistad is much better. Avoid this movie like the plague!

When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.

I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.<br /><br />My rating was an 8.

Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.<br /><br />Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.<br /><br />Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.

Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)

Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.<br /><br />I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.<br /><br />Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.<br /><br />Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.<br /><br />I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.

What can I say? I know this movie from start to finish. It's hilarious. It's an strong link to my past and will change the way I view film in the future. Hypothetically speaking :) The down-fall? There's no Socrates Johnson!

When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that "A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece." He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of "The Voice," leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner.

It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.

A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.<br /><br />What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).<br /><br />The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.<br /><br />In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works.

I show this film to university students in speech and media law because its lessons are timeless: Why speaking out against injustice is important and can bring about the changes sought by the oppressed. Why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are essential to democracy. This is a must-see story of how apartheid was brought to the attention of the world through the activism of Steven Biko and the journalism of Donald Woods. It also gives an important lesson of free speech: "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher." (From Biko by Peter Gabriel, on Shaking the Tree).

The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4. <br /><br />I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.

Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.<br /><br />Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.<br /><br />What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.<br /><br />A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well.

To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.<br /><br />I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.<br /><br />The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.<br /><br />Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.

This was a disappointment - none of the nuance of the original. The Brits just seem to be able to make a truly unsettling film with none of the over-the-top histrionics of the American version. The original series combined both creepy stories and subtlety of performance with great attention to lighting and settings. I have watched the series many times and am still enthralled.<br /><br />Just another poor adaptation along the lines of the dreadful adaptation of "Cracker". Get hooked up with BBC America or BBC Canada and watch for such delights as Waking the Dead, Spooks, Silent Witness, and Judge John Deed. Watch the original Touching Evil, then look for "Wire in the Blood" for more of the truly understated, elegant performance of Robson Green. Hollywood needs to have a look at this actor!

OK, I would not normally watch a Farrelly brothers movie. I can't recall ever watching one. I also don't recall watching a Jimmy Fallon movie. Alright, I did watch taxi, but I said penance and was forgiven for that mistake. But, this movie had Drew Barrymore and I just think she is the cutest thing. I don't know what it is about her, but I just smile the whole time I am watch her. She just captivates me that way. I mean I even watched Adam Sandler just to see her in 50 First Dates. How sad is that? This wasn't the greatest baseball movie - it wasn't supposed to be. It was a love story about a sad puppy that hung on to the only thing that never let him down until he found something worth giving that up for. It had a predictable ending, but there was so much on the way there that made it worthwhile.

This film was a big disappointment.<br /><br />I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.<br /><br />Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.<br /><br />Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony. <br /><br />I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.

Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it.

Brought to you by the following among others:<br /><br />1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)<br /><br />Yigal's Career: <br /><br />Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982<br /><br />2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)<br /><br />3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.<br /><br />Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!<br /><br />I think, therefore I am.

In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.<br /><br />"Reign Over Me" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Reine Sobre Mim" ("Reign Over Me")

If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children.

East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history. What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are unaccessible.<br /><br />You get to see and her music from musicals made in East Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth.

Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead.

I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.

Not sure if it was right or wrong, but I read thru the other comments before watching the short.I have to say I disagree with most of the negative comments or problems people have had with it.<br /><br />As a first time "Lone Wolf" director/producer,I like to see things that I can aspire to,not necessarily from the pro's, but by people just getting their feet wet like me.<br /><br />If indeed this is also from a first-timer,as I read,I applaud the effort.Marvelous job then in that respect! There were some comments about the music.I thought it was quite nice for the piece.Some say it kind of droned along for a while, but I found that created tension without(us)necessarily being conscious of it, and when he pulled the gun out and the guitar started crunching chords,it was like we knew there was a train on the tracks, but realize it is just now moving. Yes there is a 180 degree slip/clip in there, but shi* happens.Did anyone else see Hugh's dirty shirt turn white (near the end,in the rain) in "Australia"? Look how much money and people were behind that movie! Give the kid a break for Gods sake! All in all I think it was very well done. Only 2 things I would have mentioned are hardly worth mentioning-Don't walk up to a shiny brass picture frame with the camera, and I would have just displayed the splatter at the beginning shots to a still shot, so people wouldn't necessarily know what it is.<br /><br />My experience so far has taught me that it's not that it's hard to make a movie,it just takes time to learn how to do it,then the time to actually do it, and then you better take some more time still to think of all the details you'll need to have shot before you call "post-production time!" IMHO, it looks like director/writer Ryan Jafri did his homework, and if this indeed is his first report card, I'd give him an "A". The rest of you report to the principals office for a whuppin'.

Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!<br /><br />Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.<br /><br />The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.

I am a gigantic fan of both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, but this movie is just not good. The reviewer below is entirely correct that the stunning imagery of the Detroit station is the first and last memorable scene in the film. I really, really wish I had left after that, instead of continuing to hold out hope throughout the film. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt let down.<br /><br />The score is almost completely a rehash of the previous two - not necessarily a bad thing if you're a fan, but there's only one piece that stood out to me as being fresh. It was good enough, though, that I'll still probably check out the soundtrack.<br /><br />But just keep this in mind if you see this film: if you come to realize at any point that you're not enjoying it, go ahead and split - you won't miss a thing, because it won't get any better.<br /><br />I'll even give the executive summary here (warning! spoilers!): lots of shots of athletes that look almost good enough for a Nike commercial, shots of smiling people, inexplicably dull frontal head shots of famous people's wax dummies (WTF were they thinking here?!?), some giggling babies (cuuuuute), some "bitchin'" Photoshop effects, some imagery that's meant to suggest a comparison between the flows of water, information, money and people (I think)... and then a bunch of quick unrelated scenes of mass violence... and then a bunch of stock space footage.<br /><br />I could remake this movie in 10 seconds. Here's my pitch:<br /><br />2 seconds of a happy daddy with a shaved head and lycra biking shorts playing with a toddler playing with a kitten playing with string; 5 seconds of that scene in "Network" where the guy talks about messing with the "elemental forces of nature" and how "money flows in, money flows out;" 1 second of Reginald Denny getting brained with a brick, and then 3 seconds of Alan Bean bouncing around on the moon. <br /><br />There you go - that's 88 minutes and 50 seconds of your life I just saved. Of course, I'd get a copy of After Effects and apply a filter or two, so it wouldn't look as blatantly stock as it is. If Steven Soderbergh's reading this, hey, I won't even need much money for this project...<br /><br />If you insist upon watching a movie about "Life as War," I suggest "Bowling for Columbine" instead. It may not have the pseudo-intellectual veneer so fashionable among the black turtleneck crowd, but at least it's funny.

This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.

People don't seem to be giving Lensman enough credit where its due. A few issues have been overlooked which are key to understanding the Lensman experience.<br /><br />The Year: For the year it was made in (1984) Lensman features some of the most stunning effects I've ever seen. As a person who watches a lot of early 80's animation Lensman is unique in it's use of what appears to be computer-generated imagery at a time when computers were extremely primitive. Kim's battle against the geometric cutter pods in the laser maze can be taken as an excellent example of this. Every time I watch that I have to keep repeating to myself that it was 1984 when it was made.<br /><br />The Soundtrack: Lensman has one of the most insane soundtracks that I've heard, and this mad hysterical beat permeates every corner of the film. Lensman borrowed heavily on two western mistakes and managed to somewhat deal with the first one - the need to fill in every second of silence in a film with music and the need for a heroine. While the music is attuned well and galvanizes scenes such as the motorcycle battle in the Thionite Factory on Radelyx, the heroine theme fails due to the sheer annoyance value of Chris. It's interesting to note that the constant music thwarted my attempts at noise removal when I was archiving lensman over from analog tape to digital format - since there wasn't a single second of silence available to use as a reference point.<br /><br />Western Influences: Helmut - sounds like "helmet" and has roughly the same voice as Darth Vader. Clarissa Fairborn - has the same hairstyle as the princess of SW and her name sounds suspiciously similar to Marissa Fairborn of Transformers. Takes over Han Solos role by flying the ship and having some technical expertise. Buzzkirk - a definite improvement on Chewbaka. The lens - a nice concrete copy of the force that comes across less as a chance to preach Christianity at the audience than in the original SW. While the force relied on belief far more than concentration, the lens is a pure concentration tool. Theoretically, anyone could wield the lens. The lens is far more limited than the Force - being purely a defensive/offensive weapon.<br /><br />Technology: The boskone alliance have interesting meatball sponge ships. They look like stormtroopers only with red uniforms instead of white. The idea of a DNA weapon was nice if only it had been developed. The Galactic Alliance looked like Starblazers (or whatever it was called - that 60's series where they were battling the Xylons). There weren't enough ship to ship battles for me - this is much improved upon in the second Lensman film.<br /><br />Finally a note on Worzel. This character is a unique and very interesting character-design who fortunately continues on to the second film.<br /><br />

Never have i sat down for six hours straight to watch a miniseries, but Changi changed that. I'm not going to lie, I know some Aussie flicks can be pathetic and boring (actually, i quite like Aussie flicks myself but maybe I'm biased) but Changi is on a completely different lane. Although not historically accurate, as we are continually reminded, the show combines superb acting, an excellent script and the addition of humour to provide us with an entertaining and emotional perception of life in a POW camp in WWII.<br /><br />Keep in mind, the show was not supposed to be a documentary so don't let any factual errors disappoint you. <br /><br />This series exposes such creative writing by John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven)who is known more for his comedy than anything else, and an excellent director and actors move this creativity along perfectly. If you want to see how much hard work went into this series, visit the official website, it is really interesting and you'll learn a lot about true accounts of changi. <br /><br />If you haven't seen Changi yet, make sure you are doing nothing for a whole day because you'll want to watch the series in its entirety.

There's nothing new for me to say: 4 hours of people dying over and over in the same hill. The cast was stellar, but unfortunately the producer/director/editor/God goofed. He should have eaten humble pie (if not for his own sake then for the men who died in Kargil), hired one of these brilliant Bollywood directors, hired a real scriptwriter, hired a real editor, hired a musician that wasn't related to him in some way (and who seemed to have listened to some bad version of "Apocalypse Now" on some cheap Indian drug), hired a real professional crew, thrown away all the fireworks and told a real story. Unfortunately he, like the bigwigs of the Indian Army, made decisions that were terrible for his actors, and terrible for his audience. We all died over and over. <br /><br />Please don't do that again, Sir! Sushma Kathmandu, Nepal<br /><br />ps: Next time an Indian director decides to glorify the Gurkha regiment, I suggest he hire more than one Nepali to represent the team. Surely there are plenty of Nepali men working in Bombay--last count was 40,000 to half a million.

The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their "target" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.<br /><br />A friend of mine suggested I should see "The Wave" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.<br /><br />Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.<br /><br />The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of "freedom".<br /><br />That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.<br /><br />This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by "reasonable" people who are just extremists in thin disguises.

Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.<br /><br />Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).<br /><br />We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.<br /><br />The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).

"From C. Jay Cox, the writer of the hit comedy 'Sweet Home Alabama', comes a heartwarming and tender gay romantic drama that combines laughs, seduction, tears, and plenty of romance. The handsome Aaron (Steve Sandvoss), a Mormon missionary, travels door-to-door in Los Angeles spreading the word of his religion. Christian (Wes Ramsey), a cute West Hollywood party boy, goes from man-to-man without much commitment. Opposites attract when Aaron and Christian meet, and sparks begin to fly.<br /><br />"Featuring two star-making performances from Sandvoss and Ramsey, the film also features a terrific supporting cast including Mary Kay Place, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and international screen legend Jacqueline Bisset," according to the DVD sleeve description. Not to mention some sweet vocalizations from Rebekah Jordan (as Julie), the stock sympathetic roommate. Debuting director Cox turns his otherwise ordinary "Latter Days" into a enjoyable and touching drama, due to some story surprises and an engaging team.<br /><br />******* Latter Days (7/10/03) C. Jay Cox ~ Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey, Jacqueline Bisset, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Incomprehensibly dreadful mishmash of the probably most notorious of all Roman emperors who went insane, leaving infamous party orgies and ruthless killings in his path... I know there are several versions of this, and this is based on the 102 min' one that I watched - but I can't fathom how that possibly can make any difference to lift the rest of this movie out of the muck!<br /><br />I'd heard for long about the alleged "shocking" content of sex/nudity (which honestly there isn't much of here at all - and boring when there is) and blood, but beware - it's the technical production amateurishness that well and truly shocks here: Everything looks plain and simply like a junior film school flunk project! Camera-work is hopelessly inept, full of strange zooms, failed framing and confusing pans (to and from what mostly looks like a huge theater stage!) complete with a grainy, cheapish photo quality. Lighting and color schemes are terrible and uneven - is it day or night? Are they in- or outside? Have they changed scenes? Who is, or is meant to be in the shot? Editing is the final sin here, making a confusing mess of everything with randomly jumpy cutaways, continuity flaws and random transitions that destroy any chance of momentum, story progression - and involvement. There is potentially interesting dialog and an equally interesting true historical story... but these faults distract so much it's tragic.<br /><br />A story with SO many possibilities to be great is just one gargantuan, burnt (and Fellini-like) turkey that's only good for a few gobble-laughs and Peter O'Toole, who makes a most memorable Tiberius. Oh yes, which brings us to the big-name actors. I'd like to line them all up one by one and just ask: Who did you get free access to bonk in the orgies to be a part of this? There, I've wasted enough lines on one of the truly worst films of all time - period!<br /><br />1 out of 10 from Ozjeppe

What movie is this??? A horrible movie with the old boring concept of infidelity which has already been achieved by the "Bhatt camp". The movie starrs EMRAAN HASHMI, UDITA GOSWAMI AND DINO MOREA. The movie has "No Base". It just goes like this... Dino an Udita are married and living in a rich mansion. However Dino doesn't like Udita to the heart as he wants only her wealth. He loves someone else (Tara Sharma). So he bribes Emraan to have an affair with Udita so that he could catch them and finally split up with Udita.. How BORING!! However Emraan falls in love with Udita and vice versa. Lastly when Udita gets imprisonment for killing Emraan, Dino pretentiously tries to save her showing his false love to her. Udita on the other hand does not understand this and feels that he loved her truly. So she lends all her wealth to Dino. Finally Dino comes out of the police - station and goes with Tara with all the wealth. What a fraud!! The songs are good and are the only thing good in the movie. Now the individual ratings: (Out of 5) Emraan: * * Udita: * 1/2 Dino : * 1/2 Overall acting: * 1/2 Direction: * * Story: * Music: * * * 1/2 Final rating: * 1/2 Poor performances and poor casting....... Music: Good... I rate the movie: 1.5 / 10 (Dont waste your time !!!!)

LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.

She's the Man was the funniest movie I have ever seen. I laughed so hard that I was crying. It was also very romantic. Channing Tatum is absolutely gorgeous and can really act. It sure doesn't hurt that he has quite a few shirtless scenes either. Channing and Amanda have amazing chemistry and were absolutely wonderful together. I love this movie. When you watch make sure to watch the last deleted scene. It was a huge mistake to cut that scene because it is one of the best scenes in the movie. I highly recommend this movie. Amanda has never been funnier. And Channing is going to be a huge star. This is just the first of many for this bright new star.

If you merely look at the cover of this movie, it's cool. DON'T. The movie itself put me to sleep. It was slow paced, had minimal violence and a poor use of suspense. The acting was bottom feeder material and the plot, while it would've been cool for a different movie, was poorly shown here. They even kill the only likeable character in the whole film! I give it a 2 out of 10 because the only thing that was good was the plot twist at the end. Other than that, you might want to save yourself from this movie trash.

Frankie Darro was a wonderful child actor who excelled at playing pugnacious little toughs with gigantic chips on their shoulders. He appeared in a couple of top films of the early 30s - "The Public Enemy" (1931), a ground breaking crime drama and "Wild Boys of the Road" (1933), a topical depression era movie about kids who ride the rails. He was essentially a younger version of James Cagney. Although short of height, his willingness to do his own stunts kept him employed in a series of programmers when the bigger studios had no more use for him.<br /><br />"Crime School" was supposed to be a remake of "The Mayor of Hell" but it had far more humour in it and featured The Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart as a very laid back Deputy Commisssioner. "The Mayor of Hell" is really a combination of "Hell's House"/"Crime School"/ "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney didn't make his appearance until around the 25th minute his impact (as usual) was immediate. He plays a hot headed gangster who is on the payroll of a political group run by the mob.<br /><br />Jimmy Smith (Frankie Darro) and his gang (including "Farina" from "Our Gang") run a car washing racket but bite off more than they can chew when they rob a general store and push the owner through a plate glass window. They appear before the juvenile court and are sentenced to go to the state reformatory. It is painted in glowing terms - a model school where boys are given a chance to learn a trade. In reality, it is a hellish place run by a sadistic warden, Mr. Thompson (outstandingly played by Dudley Digges). The only compassionate person is Dorothy Griffith, the live-in nurse (played by Madge Evans).<br /><br />"Patsy" Gargan (James Cagney) has been given the job as the new Deputy Commissioner, as a favour. On his arrival at the school he witnesses a failed escape attempt and after talking to Dorothy, realises the school needs sweeping reforms. He is soon running the school and brings in a system of "self government" - rather along the lines of "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney doesn't have a lot to do, the picture is carried along to it's gripping climax by the energy of Darro. After "Patsy" is temporarily out of the picture (he accidentally shoots a mobster and has to leave the state), Thompson returns and his brutal treatment, resulting in the death of a boy ("Skinny") turn the rest of the boys into an angry mob. They burn down a barn and Thompson falls to his death - "Patsy" returning just in time to quieten the mob with some sobering talk.<br /><br />Sure, all the boys seemed to get was a stiff talking to for their crimes but I do disagree with one of the reviewers - Thompson was more than just a "meanie". His sadistic treatment resulted in a boy's death. There is a scene at the beginning where the boys are served some inedible slop - Thompson orders ham and eggs and keeps piling the butter on his bread while talking to Dorothy. <br /><br />Allan Jenkins plays "Uncle" Mike and Sheila Terry, although billed only as "a blonde" has one of the most memorable lines when she pouts and says "I thought there was going to be young boys here, where are they?"!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines.

"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.<br /><br />The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".<br /><br />Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.<br /><br />Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.<br /><br />Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.<br /><br />The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.<br /><br />"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.

How can you tell that a horror movie is terrible? when you can't stop laughing about it of course! The plot has been well covered by other reviewers, so I'll just add a few things on the hilarity of it all.<br /><br />Some reviews have placed the location in South America, others in Africa, I thought it was in some random island in the Pacific. Where exactly does this take place, seems to be a mystery. The cannibal tribe is conformed by a couple of black women some black men, and a man who looks like a young Frank Zappa banging the drums... the Devil God is a large black man with a terrible case of pink eyes.<br /><br />One of the "freakiest" moments in the film is when, "Pablito" find his partner hanging from a tree covered in what seems to be an orange substance that I assume is blood, starts screaming for minutes on and on (that's actually funny), and then the head of his partner falls in the ground and "Pablito" kicks it a bit for what I assume is "shits n' giggles" and the eyes actually move...<br /><br />But, of course, then the "freak" is gone when you realize the eyes moved because the movie is just bad...<br /><br />I hadn't laughed like this in a loooong while, and I definitely recommend this film for a Sunday afternoon with your friends and you have nothing to do... grab a case of beers and start watching this film, you'll love it! If you are looking for a real horror or gore movie, though... don't' bother.

How Rick Sloane was allowed to make five movies is harder to believe than cold fusion. This film is absolutely criminal. Before watching this movie I thought Manos: Hands of Fate was the worse piece of crap I ever saw, but at least Manos moves so slowly you might fall asleep, thereby rescuing your eyes from the pain it will suffer. The greatest tragedy of this movie is that the old man that keeps the Hobgoblins "locked" up makes it to the final scene. The time I spent watching this movie was an absolute waste of my life.

"If I sit down I will never stand up again", that's what the mother (the one of the title) says to his son when he tells her to get some rest (she's just widowed). He means that resting is what a woman of his age and in her situation has to do: to rest in peace, to neglect herself. But she's not in the mood for "resting", not yet. She also has a daughter who reproaches her for each and every disasters in her life... Suddenly, the revelation comes: sex and passion in the figure of a muscular carpenter 30 years younger than her (Daniel Craig, the brand new James Bond) when she "thought nobody would ever touch her again". It is a story that makes you reflect on many things, specially on what's a 60 something woman is supposed to do with her life when his husband dies. It doesn't look that we've advanced that such in those aspects. I mean, nobody's surprised when Sean Connery has a love affair in a movie with Catherine Zeta Jones... but what would you think if it was otherwise? An old woman, a young guy... nah, you ain't ready for that, are you?<br /><br />The movie has intimist tones all along its length, except for 2 or 3 sequences in which that tones breaks and out comes some explicit and foul-mouthed dialogs. Those vulgar touches and the way the son and the daughter find out their mother's love affair (pretty absurd -you'll know what I mean when you watch it-) are the only discordant elements in "The Mother". <br /><br />*My rate: 7/10

I'm a horror movie freak, and this has got to be one of the most phenomenal horror flicks I've ever seen. The plotline is totally original (who else would think up a town who gets totally obsessed with a certain symbol to the point of death and insanity?), the special effects are amazing, and the cinematography couldn't be better. Some may find it disturbing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. It also makes a good point. The spiral symbol is kinda ubiquitous. The spiral notebook, spiral seashells, spirals on cakes. Of all the shapes they could have used (square, triangle, trapezoid, rectangle) this was one of the best choices. If you can find this movie, definitely see it. It's certainly unique, and quite unforgettable.

I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff. <br /><br />Ahh well, better luck next time eh?

After two long, long opening skits, one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free, we start the fast-forward fest that it GROOVE TUBE proper. Naturally, uber-stupid frat boys who still mainline JACKASS or Tom Green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube, SEX OLYMPICS(I really don't need to give you details, do I), and a clown who basically does the "not very endearing clown" bit I think I've seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles: well, more power to you.<br /><br />I just want to express that, despite what you've heard, this movie was in no way a model for the many infinitely funnier movies like KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE or what not. The skit movie had already been done in AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, and so on. And done way better.

Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of "point of hear" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.<br /><br />The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002.

Obviously, the the responses here were written many years after the film was released and cannot be taken in context. Back in 1980 in post labour England, this film was bloody funny. We were glad of something to laugh about and Rising Damp, with its sympathetic mockery of a complete social strata, was one of the best British sitcoms of its period, if not ever. It struck a chord in almost everybody and in true British fashion, we laughed at the Rigsby in ourselves. America had nothing to touch this type of humour because self debasement was not amusing to our overseas cousins. Leonard Rossiter was one of Englands finest actors, on stage, on TV and in Movies. His commitment and professionalism were second to none. Richard Beckinsale was, although young, a perfect comedic foil to Rossiter and should, by all rights, be classed as an all time great. Had he not been taken so young, I feel sure he would, by now, be classified as one of Britains greatest comedy actors. Frances De la Tour found her finest television moment in Rising Damp and, for me, never quantified her undoubted ability with further roles. If you did not see the film at the time of its release, you are not qualified to comment, simply because you cannot understand why it was funny, the humour of the moment.

This is, in my opinion, much better than either of the 2 1990's versions, but is still not all that good. It feels dated, probably because it is, but it does stand up well compared to other BBC 1980's period pieces such as Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey.<br /><br />The length of this adaptation allows for a much better adaptation of the book than either of the 2 90's versions, and St John Rivers is at least covered, although not very well. Timothy Dalton is very good as Rochester, but the actress playing Jane is much too old. There is definitely scope for a TV adaptation of this length that has more than a tenner spent on it.

since this is part 2, then compering it to part one...<br /><br />man that was on many places wierd... too many time jumps etc.<br /><br />I have to say that I was really disapointed...<br /><br />only someplaces little lame action... and thats it....<br /><br />they could have done that better....<br /><br />

When I was driving home after work, I bought some movies for my four year old twins. I had bought this movie my kids would enjoy. I watched this with my children. My 10 and 17 year old were about to throw up. In this movie ,the dad acts like a tard. My little ones would watch it every day.One day, they threw away all our movies.I SOLD THE Omosis Jones movie on Ebay. My Grade: F++++++++++++++++ I rather be seen on the worst dress list.<br /><br />My kids now hate this dumb movie. If gives the idea that germs can talk to each other. I wonder how the dumb movie sounds in Japenese. I broke the CD in half when I got irritated of seeing it over and over again. No offence but, Brandy & Elena's acting was the best

This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.

Though this movie has a first rate roster of fine actors, special effects that are excellent, and a story line that is full of surprises, it wasn't picked up for studio distribution and went directly to DVD. Perhaps it contains too much 'anti-police force' information, or perhaps it is juts one too many action flicks released during a glut, but whatever the reason the big screens missed the opportunity, fortunately the new concept of releasing direct to DVD allows us to enjoy it.<br /><br />The theme is old: rookie reporter uncovers an inner circle of cops that are corrupt - in this case the F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault and Tactical) team, a group of well trained policeman created to clean up the mythical city of Edison from its low point of crime, drugs, prostitution etc. Working undercover the temptation of pocketing the confiscated goods and money proves too much of an opportunity and now, 15 years after its formation, FRAT is responsible for murder, drug trafficking, terrorizing innocent people etc. The lead dog is Lazerov (Dylan McDermott, who makes a terrifyingly real gangster!) and his partner Rafe Deed (LL Cool J, even more buff than usual and proving he can be a sensitive actor). Reporter Pollack (Justin Timberlake) catches wind of a 'bad mistake' and reports his theory of fraud and corruption to his paper's boss Ashford (the always reliably fine Morgan Freeman). Gradually Polack convinces Ashford and subsequently Wallace (Kevin Spacey, also a consistently fine character actor) and they aid Pollack in this investigative reporting. The closer Pollack gets to the truth the more surprises and bad incidents happen and the story runs pall mall toward a series of unexpected results.<br /><br />Timberlake lacks the charisma to carry the lead, especially in the company of such seasoned actors. But LL Cool J, Freeman, Spacey, and McDermott keep the well-oiled machine of a movie rolling to the very end. No, it is not a great movie, but it is one that makes for an edge of the seat action flick with a message. Grady Harp

Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of "exploitation-cinema" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! "House of Frankenstein", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but "House of Dracula" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and – most of all – a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation … well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.

Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children.

While it certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, it was certainly worth the $8 (which can't be said for many movies these days.)<br /><br />This was a pleasant account of a true story, although many of the details of the real story were twisted for the movie, (ie, Billy Sunday's character was three or four people in the real story combined together.) Robert DeNiro was of course good, and Cuba Gooding, Jr., was also impressive.

There is so much bad to say about this movie and so little that's good!<br /><br />The plot has enough holes to sink the Titanic, the characters are completely unbelievable, the monsters are so unrealistic, and I'm sick and tired of seeing movies that involve an ex-husband and ex-wife being thrown together in some bizarre emergency - it happens far too often in films and it's become another bad cliché.<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that anybody would have invested $1 in making this garbage, never mind the $100 or so it must have cost.<br /><br />You could make a better movie with more convincing special effects on your home computer! I didn't think movies could get this bad! Avoid it at all costs - do something that's more fun and enjoyable, such as having a tooth pulled, or an enema!

Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?<br /><br />At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.

There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come.

This is by far the worst film i have ever seen it has next to no plot and the plot it does have is very scattered. The story line is lacking in both content, suspense and subtitles, as what would appear to be story line is in Russian. The set appears to be only one room with various lighting effects and at the moment you think something good is about to happen you are let down by the total lack of acting, drama, suspense, horror, gore, story line and mythology. The directing style has been done to death(The fisheye camera). It would seem that the only action in this film is within the last 10 - 15 minutes and the action is made worse by the actors inability to portray the suspense correctly. The only interesting thing about this movie was my dog barking at the surround sound.

It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.

This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of "we're just a bunch of wacky guys" in the midst of the "my goodness this can be really dangerous" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.<br /><br />Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten.

I kind of feel like a genius; I feel like I'm the only one who saw through this fake film. I watched it three times, once with commentary, and I found myself getting annoyed at all the close-ups, all the times the screen just blacks out, and worst of all, I feel the film never really resolves anything. Yes, the priest dies, but he didn't really seem at peace with the town that gave him so much grief, or with himself. That and he was an idiot. If it weren't for the commentary by Peter Cowie which explained not only the movie but the book it came from, I wouldn't have been able to stomach it at all. I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.<br /><br />Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe. Scene after scene of extreme close-ups where characters don't say anything until the camera cuts away and goes to a black out do NOT make an interesting or relevant story. How this film ever became a classic is mind boggling: it reminds me more of The Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />Yes, Claude Laydu's performance is heartfelt and thought provoking, if you are a sadist, but this film left me feeling empty because overall it is a weak impression of the Catholic priesthood, which is an ignoble and inglorious institution of corruption. The young priest's triumph over the countess's pride is a weak scene but 90% of the film will drag you down with its dreary introspection and window into the young priest's melancholy thoughts. This priest doesn't come across so much as being humble as he does just plain pitiful.<br /><br />Being that I don't speak or understand French I was looking forward to doing the English SUBTITLE thing to help understand the film. Well, the English SUBTITLE is at times impossible to view/read and the text rolls by so quickly that there was much I could not read (and I am not a particularly slow reader - I just finished Dostoyevsky in 3 days). <br /><br />I really wanted to like this film . I try out everything "chosen" by the Criterion Collection, and yet can not see why in many ways this one merits some sort of critical nod. However, I sat through this entire two hour film yearning to feel some sort of empathy for the main character, and it never materialized. He just seemed like a victim rather than a fighter. And for that, I say it stunk.

Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.<br /><br />Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.<br /><br />It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.

This movie is hilarious. I would say much more painful & disgusting than the previous movie. The entire cast from the previous movie & series is present.<br /><br />These kind of movies are great to watch in the MovieTheater cause the whole audience is crying with laughter, especially at the terrorist part that was damn disgusting. I wish they made more of these kind of movies.<br /><br />Strong stomach required! They got some insane stunts this time around. Warning: includes a lot of snakes! I would love to write about it but I just can't spoil the fun. Go see it!!!

I loved it! Fred MacMurray is wonderful as Skid Johnson, a somewhat conceited, proud yet at the same time very vulnerable saxophone player who is in love with Maggie (Carole Lombard), who's always there for him. They meet in Panama after Maggie comes off a ship and end up in a bar with Anthony Quinn. Tony gets punched in the nose after her insults Maggie by thinking her a loose woman - all because she took off her hat in public. Big brawl and Maggie ends up stuck in Panama. Romance. Carole and Arthur are great together. Maggie is always there for him whenever he needs her. She urges him to go to NY where (well watch the movie and find out). They have these wonderful scenes together where she sings in his arms while he plays the saxophone. I definitely recommend it.

Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.

Comparisons to the original series are inevitable. It's a shame Diana Rigg left the original show in the 1960's due to mistreatment on the part of the producers, and MacNee probably regretted this as much as any fan - there's no telling how long the show might have lasted otherwise. Linda Thorson was OK as a replacement and her episodes still retained almost all of the quality and aspects of the Rigg episodes - only the Rigg/Macnee chemistry was lacking. The New Avengers should have been left on the shelf - a declining Macnee, an annoying Purdey, and a who the hell is this guy Gambit. Also, the humor was forced and poor - granted I only watched a few of the episodes, because that was all I COULD watch, but I think I got the idea. Try as many might and do, it's nearly impossible to resurrect an old show as a new format or movie.

Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.), <br /><br />This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.<br /><br />I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.<br /><br />TV Review: 1 Star

Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply "refuse to quit." These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of "just do it" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly "one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of "sci fi" and "suspense" and also "how to make a movie." It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff.

RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI<br /><br />His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap<br /><br />This film is a decent film but could be better<br /><br />The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy<br /><br />Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle<br /><br />The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn<br /><br />Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out<br /><br />Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay

Sometimes good things happen by accident.<br /><br />I'd never heard of "Silverwing" until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!<br /><br />Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats "extra fingers" where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.<br /><br />Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).<br /><br />What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the "trilogy." I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, "Towers of Fire" (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.<br /><br />But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.<br /><br />However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering "Is that it?" Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.<br /><br />In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.<br /><br />Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.<br /><br />Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait.

What an ambitious project Kenneth Branagh undertook here and how well it was realized! This is the first filmed version of 'Hamlet' to use the full text of Shakespeare's play, but Branagh didn't do it just because "it was there." His intention, I believe, was to make the play accessible and understandable to the general viewer without dumbing it down, so to speak. In return he asks viewers to put in a little work themselves, a fair enough proposition and one that's a bargain.<br /><br />The setting is a generic 19th century European one and this does more than work well, it keeps a modern or ancient look from possibly distracting from the work itself. The production design and cinematography and both outstanding, which helps immensely when you're watching a four-hour movie. Branagh's casting once again is inspired and the acting is likewise. The direction accomplishes the heavy task of making this a movie rather than a deluxe version of a play. Since so much of 'Hamlet' is based on interior monologue and there are relatively few duels, battles, etc., this can be a daunting task. But everything Branagh tries to do seems to work.<br /><br />Branagh has always been one of the most interesting actor/writer/directors, if not always the best, since he made his big splash with 'Henry V.' One quibble I had with him was what I saw as a tendency to ham it up at times. In his portrayal of Hamlet here he might be accused of that again, but there is a method at work. Let's face it, 'Hamlet' is not an easy work for the average person to understand and if one has never seen it performed before, he or she needs help even if they've read the play. Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearian character and Branagh makes sure that his viewers know what this man is thinking and feeling throughout the film, even if you don't know the literal meaning of every arcane word. This performance by Branagh was at the very least worthy of an Oscar nomination.<br /><br />There are so many other outstanding performances here they're almost too numerous to mention, but some of them must be acknowledged. Derek Jacobi as Claudius is superb but even he takes a back seat to Kate Winslet when it comes to handing out praise. Her portrayal of Ophelia is awesome in its depth of feeling, made only more outstanding by the knowledge that she was only about 20 years old at the time! She looks to me like the finest young actress around. Other super performers in no particular order are Richard Briers, Nicholas Farrell, Michael Maloney, and Reece Dinsdale and Timothy Spall as Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, respectively. Honorable mention goes to Julie Christie, Charlton Heston, and Robin Williams, who manages to do his thing here successfully. Even Billy Crystal as a gravedigger works. The one cast member who doesn't, inexplicably, is Jack Lemmon. In the very opening scene he appears, and while the other three actors do a great job at setting the tense mood, Lemmon sounds like he is just running lines in rehearsal as a favor. You know this must have been a real dilemma for Branagh, since everything else about the movies screams out that it's the work of a perfectionist.<br /><br />Not to be facetious when speaking of a four-hour movie, but it does seem just a tad too long. Some monologues and conversations do tend to go on a bit, if I may be so bold, and a little bit of judicious pruning would be welcome.<br /><br />Did I forget anything, other than Patrick Doyle's score? No doubt I did. I'll just sum up by saying that Kenneth Branagh may have made the definitive film version of 'Hamlet,' and it will be a truly monumental production that tops this one.

I like movies that show real people "Americans" and tell truth. The movie is simple and that seems to be the great thing about it. It played here in Norway fine (Amazon says above that it's USA/Canda but the box states "All Regions". I have to say it is not for the American viewers. It played in here in World Raw Views, a theater. I saw it and later I ordered it. The cut was different and much better. See it and you will like it or maybe hate it. Sorry Bush lovers but this movie is driving you crazy because it makes sense. Get angry and hate it. Disagree with everything in it but I for one stand by it. It's not for the empty minds. It is long and too hard to keep up with but by the second viewing it makes more sense. I loved Owen's words and the poem made me cry.

I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. (" no private airplanes". The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill.

I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary. <br /><br />Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.<br /><br />I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film.

Naked Deanna Troi! <br /><br />Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!<br /><br />Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.<br /><br />Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.<br /><br />All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.<br /><br />As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.<br /><br />If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.

If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.<br /><br />This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.

I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one.

Time travel is a fun concept, and this film gives it a different slant. I got a kick out of Captain Billingham, one of the more down-to-earth characters, who was just not having a good day. Ordinarily, I don't choose to watch horror films, but this is an exception. Good story, excellent acting.

I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only "damaged" character. Howard is rather ruthlessly "set-up" by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic " I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home". Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.<br /><br />The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - "Floor's are my speciality". Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.<br /><br />Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.<br /><br />Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the "sacredness" of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything "untouched" has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.<br /><br />Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.<br /><br />Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer "On Dangerous Ground", but this is pretty good too.

Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.<br /><br />The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.<br /><br />With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.

The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.<br /><br />Jay Addison

Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the "20 pieces of extreme gore" and "banned in 20 countries" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.<br /><br />Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.<br /><br />I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.<br /><br />The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.<br /><br />Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.<br /><br />3/10

Michael Jackson is not very popular in USA anymore, however in Europe (especially Germany) he has still got lots of fans. Many will say that this is a bad movie, and it is: it has no plot, it's full of cliches, Michael praises himself constantly.<br /><br />BUT, you can't expect a plot or non-cliches in this kind of movie! It has entertaining visual effects and the music is perfect. The Smooth Criminal fragment - the greatest song ever, full of Moonwalks, group dance acts and even the famous "Michael Jackson's Bench-over" - makes this film one of Jackson's masterpieces with an even good-looking (and white...) Michael Jackson!<br /><br />A must for Jackson fans, a must for music fans, a must for dance act fans.<br /><br />However, as I'm an MJ fan, I should warn all Michael Jackson haters out there: DON'T watch this movie, you'd only make your hate increase...

This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9.

My opinions do not flow with the majority in most cases. I tend to lean toward the artsy, imaginative, and different. This movie was reminiscent of Frances Ford's "The Black Stallion" wherein a fantasy situation is created to showcase the beauty of a magnificent creature who's not readily available to view performing at its peak except on these multitudes of documentaries ala natural. Unlike those nature films, this offering utilizes the finest movie making techniques the industry has to offer fit for a diva creating one of the most sensual super stars (the cat) on the screen.<br /><br />This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.<br /><br />The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.<br /><br />

William Hurt scuba diving scientist??? US agents running the investigation abroad? The sick contaminated man kicking butt after falling 20 feet on his back and running away? Sniper missing and not killing Hurt (just wounding him) but the second "kill" shot is dead on ? Waste of time. To compare this to falling down as other reviewers did is ridiculous. Oh and by the end of the movie they decide to start wearing gloves on their hands except for the "evil" agent and Hurt decides to kill him by giving him the "virus handshake". What? BTW...when did IMDb require 10 lines of text? I'm just babbling here. Doesn't this just dillute the content of reviews if you are required to have x amount of lines?

I saw this movie, when it first came out. Patty didn't want to be separated from her siblings. However the Juvenile Justice system don't care. When Patty looked at the case file, the judge sent her to a Juvenile detention facility. He claimed she violated the rules of privacy, by looking at private files. She just wanted her family together. I couldn't blame her. The parents were not even fit parents. One of the smaller children had to have a restroom. The father stopped and let them off. He drove off him and left the children stranded, at the service station. Patty had to take authority to protect them, since she was the oldest. They were placed in foster homes. The good part is that the social worker got them back as a family. The head social worker, kept telling him to butt out and not interfere. He was power crazy. He was the one, who had Patty placed in the Juvenile facility. Why didn't they go after the Father, who was released from Prison, for abandonment. Yet the children are caught in the middle and made to feel insecure.

I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences.

American Movie is a wonderful documentary. It follows the trials and tribulations of a very determined independent filmmaker as he struggles to finish his first film.<br /><br />The raw footage and insightful content of this film is an excellent example of how documentaries should be produced. I also feel that the film can very inspirational to those of us that want to be filmmakers ourselves.

This is what James Cagney is all about, wisecracks, cockiness, hard as nails and no-nonsense charisma.<br /><br />Although the plot sounds serious, the film is anything but. It is done in the 30's screwball comedy style and works well with his 'bickering' with fiancé Mae Clark and his reactions to the tall stories of his colleague James Burke.<br /><br />What raises it above normal is the dialogue and the cast that delivers it. Dialogue is good but it is nothing unless delivery is spot on and can bounce about the characters involved. This is done well by all throughout.<br /><br />Good entertainment and thoroughly enjoyable.

Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.

This musical was not quite what I expected, foremost being there weren't many scenes between Brando and Sinatra. As it was based on a Damon Runyon story, I expected irony and surprise, of which there was one really good one - when we find that Sinatra's gang has used the Salvation Army office for their crap game while Brando was in Havana with Simmons. If course it comes at the right moment too, when Brando brings her back. I really didn't expect much from Brando as a singer, but he surprised me. He wasn't great but he was just fine in the role. His big number in the sewer, however, with the rest of Sinatra's boys was the only place I felt Brando's voice was weak. He just didn't have the power the grand climax demanded. Overall I found the scenes between Brando and Simmons to be filled with electricity, something I didn't think would happen when we first see Simmons by herself, and later when we're introduced to Brando in the restaurant with Sinatra trying to pull a fast one on him. It wasn't until Brando goes to her office that the story came to life. <br /><br />Frank Sinatra, on the other hand, was flat, even his vocal performances. And Vivian Blaine, who I never heard of, but who I guess played the role on Broadway, just seemed to slow the proceedings down. The scenes between her and Sinatra were obvious. Also, her songs felt the weakest to me both in terms of advancing story or character. On top of that, all the Goldwyn Girls numbers seemed shoe horned in, just there for glitz. For example, when Frank meets with Brando in the nightclub, we just cut to the stage routine for the cat number - then it cuts back to the guys who continue on as if there hadn't been any dance number at all. Whenever Brando and Simmons were on screen, I was having a great time, but each time we return to the Sinatra-Blaine story, my interest level waned. <br /><br />As for the songs, there were some good ones, particularly the very first number with Stubby Kaye, the Fugue for Tinhorns number (Can Do!). That's a great song and it reminded me of the very first song in The Music Man - Cash for the Merchandise... whatever it's called. And the number in the sewer - I couldn't help but be reminded of "Cool" from West Side Story - which brings me to a point. I really did not like the art direction in this film. The fake Times Square was just so completely phony it drew attention to itself. Same for the Havana sequence, and particularly the sewer. I realize back in 1955 most musicals were shot on sets, but things were changing - Carousel, for example, made great use of location photography. Even On the Town shot scenes in Mahattan in 1949. By the time we get to West Side Story in 1961 it's a given that stuff taking place in Manhattan had to be actually shot in Manhattan. So by comparison, Guys and Dolls set-bound Manhattan felt dated and more than a little too cute. And changing Lindy's to Mindy's - did they really have to do that for legal reasons? Now, I always thought Guys and Dolls was a musical about Sinatra and Brando and their adventures with various girls. It was much more focused than that, which is to its credit. In that regard it is much better than Les Girls, which was interesting in it's own right, but had a certain shallowness to it. <br /><br />My one major complaint about Guys and Dolls, and I don't know if this is endemic to the original stage show, but when Jean Simmons realizes that Brando never took any money for a bet that he made with Sinatra and even said that he lost the bet, she just runs off to find him and we cut to the wedding. It seems to me a scene between Brando and Simmons would have added to the impact of the story. To see Brando come around as she came around to him would have been a great scene. There is such a scene in The Music Man (SPOILERS AHEAD), when Harold and Marion have that duet while he's waiting for her to change. She's upstairs in her house, he's down on the sidewalk. He's singing 76 Trombones. She's singing Goodnight My Someone. They suddenly switch and sing each other's songs - a beautiful way to convey their cross over to each other. It's an emotional high moment of the film. Still, Guys and Dolls had a lot going for it.