Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

I have always loved Brenda Blethyn and "Undertaking Betty" was no disappointment. I saw it on Satellite on dreary Sunday morning. Life has been stressful and this movie made me laugh and see things we usually consider dire in a mirthful way. I wish she would make more movies like this and "Saving Grace." Brenda Blethyn is a great gal for us approaching 60 to see in action. She is cute, beautiful and full of life without appearing plastic and phony. Not many actresses are out there for us to relate to in a realistic, yet comical and/or serious way. Brenda - if you see this - keep going with gems like this. We need more Mrs. Bennetts, Bettys and Graces.

After seeing a preview for this film at my local mall where there is a stand for purchasing foreign films, I thought it looked very entertaining. Before watching the movie i went on to IMDb to see what ratings and comments it received. I was worried when I noticed the low numbers and the negative ratings. Despite the hype, I watched to movie and to my surprise I found it unbelievable. <br /><br />The story was great (just pay attention) and the characters and their relationships within the film is astonishing. I haven't seen such a good combination of leading characters in long time. I really felt for both characters and sensed a strong bond. As reading previous posts about this movie not being "epic" enough or a lack of martial arts I could not disagree more. This film is what it is, its not Braveheart and its not Enter the Dragon but it is still a wonderful film that does an excellent job combining story both and action.<br /><br />While Sword In The Moon isn't perfect (what movie is?) it still is wonderful and moving. Just wait until the ending scene, with the music and cinematography together, its breathtaking. I only hope more people can see this movie to give it a fair voting.

I don't think I've really ever given Walter Matthau his due as a comedic performer. He's certainly been wonderful in plenty of lighthearted roles, but I guess I always put his success down to his characters' grumpiness and ruthlessness, a gruff contrast to the flamboyant personality of his frequent co-star Jack Lemmon, and, I suppose, a natural extension of his earlier work in dramatic pictures. Watching Gene Saks' 'The Odd Couple (1968),' adapted from a popular Neil Simon play, the realisation suddenly clicked: Matthau is, in his own right, absolutely hilarious! Initially striking the audience as filthy, crude and generally unappealing, his Oscar Madison eventually manages to worm his way into our hearts, culminating in a hilariously overplayed confession of emotions that Matthau rasps out in a voice not entirely his own. At the same time, while holding his own as a comedian, his interplay with Lemmon is, of course, pitch-perfect; indeed, the film rightly belongs to both actors, who have never failed to light up the cinema screen by themselves, let alone together.<br /><br />Calling to mind Billy Wilder's screenplay for 'The Apartment (1960),' this Neil Simon comedy builds itself around around a rather morbid premise. Compulsive house-cleaner Felix Unger (Lemmon), having just been evicted by his wife of twelve years, attempts to commit suicide, but fruitlessly abandons the idea after he wrecks his back trying to open the hotel window. Dejected, he arrives at the house of good friend Oscar (Matthau), a divorced slob who lives alone on a diet of potato crisps and green sandwiches (that might contain either very new cheese or very old meat!). Oscar kindly offers Felix a place to stay, but is soon overwhelmed by his friend's finicky personality and constant insistence on absolute cleanliness. The pair form an unusual sort of marital arrangement, with Felix assuming the role of the effeminate and constantly-nagging wife, and Oscar as the sloppy, unappreciative husband who always comes home later than he's supposed to. This is a marriage that barely lasts three weeks, and, by the end of it, we can completely sympathise with Felix's ex-wife, who remains unseen.<br /><br />'The Odd Couple' is a terrific comedy, most of all because it has a lot of heart. For all their arguing, it's obvious that the two roommates have plenty of affection for each other, most movingly seen when Felix tries to launch into a furious tirade, instead – perhaps inadvertently – ending up informing Oscar how "tops" he his. The pair's four poker buddies (John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner and Larry Haines) are also constantly badgering each other about some obscure annoyance, but you can't deny that they've got the best of intentions. Their decision to treat Felix as though nothing has happened to him may have sounded fine in theory, but maybe being ignored wasn't quite the correct solution to Felix's gloomy feelings of inadequacy and inconsequentiality. Unlike some comedies based on popular stage plays {I was recently disappointed by Wilder's 'The Seven Year Itch (1955)}, this film doesn't simply strike at the same chord throughout, and the relationship between the two leads is progressively developed, through tears, laughter and much disagreement.

That's a bad, raunchy, predictable, tacky, salacious soap opera? "The Best of Everything" is just such a guilty pleasure for me, something along the lines of "Valley of the Dolls". I mean, "Best" has everything. Somebody gets pregnant out of wedlock (when's the last time you heard THAT phrase?), there are affairs everywhere, drinking, backstabbing, jealousy, and even a tragic but not altogether unexpected death.<br /><br />Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) and Mike Rice (the delicious Stephen Boyd) are the centerpieces of the goings-on. Their chemistry is immediate and is the glue that keeps this film from becoming too fragmented.<br /><br />Suzy Parker, the off-the-chart gorgeous ex-fashion model, appears as Gregg Adams, an aspiring stage actress, a role that, according to any biography I've ever read about her, was apparently not much of a stretch. But Parker does a surprisingly credible job here, more than holding her own in a couple of scenes opposite Louis Jourdan who plays David Savage. Jourdan probably took this role for the money and the special screen credit because he was clearly headed down the aging star/has-been road.<br /><br />Diane Baker is fine as naive, gullible April Morrison, Martha Hyer as Barbara Lemont has a particularly juicy storyline, and film legend Joan Crawford chews her usual serving of scenery as Amanda Farrow, another role, like Jourdan's Savage, that Crawford likely took for the paycheck.<br /><br />There is some obviously dated dialog and plot devices (this IS 1959), and the predictability of the soap opera genre. But if you like a good soap as I do, "The Best of Everything" will more than satisfy you.

It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.

An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.<br /><br />Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.<br /><br />Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.<br /><br />Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.<br /><br />Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.<br /><br />Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.<br /><br />The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.<br /><br />It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.<br /><br />The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.<br /><br />Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get.

This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.

For all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.

I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.<br /><br />Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.<br /><br />Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.<br /><br />Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.

Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.

A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel "The Hunters" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp).

This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting. <br /><br />"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.<br /><br />Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).<br /><br />Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.

Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.

The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of "Tintorera" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot.

Marilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay away.

Target is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish "Terrorists" (note that this is one of those American "movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies"), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.<br /><br />This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.<br /><br />The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.<br /><br />Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says "Charlie, help!" or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies "it's okay, honey" in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.<br /><br />This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.

It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted.

I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.

Very shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy yourself.

This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.<br /><br />Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.<br /><br />There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10

What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.<br /><br />I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.<br /><br />Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.<br /><br />

Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a "PERMA-TURD" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind

In the spirit of the classic "The Sting", this movie hits where it truly hurts... in the heart! A prim, proper female psychiatrist, hungry for adventure, meets up with the dirtiest and rottenest of scoundrals. The vulnerable doctor falls for the career badman, and begs to be involved in his operation. While the movie moves kind of "slow", it's climax and ending are stunning! You'll especially enjoy how the doctor "forgives herself"!

"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.<br /><br />The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.<br /><br />It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.

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.

Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.<br /><br />I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.<br /><br />The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.<br /><br />I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.<br /><br />As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.

What could ever happen in a dull Texan town in summer? Well, a bunch of teenagers find out a few things can and do happen.<br /><br />It turns out the Mexican werewolf of this story is nothing less than el chupacabra, and the movie, unlike the name would suggest, is not a remake or lookalike of the American Werewolf movies, but something completely different.<br /><br />Overall, for an obviously low-budget movie, it's not bad! Some clever camera work, quite decent looking traditional creature and gore effects, and for once not all-knowing people that can and do make mistakes, like shooting a colleague thinking it's the big bad beast, and are baffled by things they could not possibly know.<br /><br />Sit down at this expecting a blockbuster million-dollar production, and you will turn it off in disgust after a short while. Sit down at this expecting a bit of entertainment and a relatively simple story, and it's quite good! Overall it gets an 8/10 from me for being creative, having OK acting, and pulling off some good work for the budget this movie had.

This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star.

George P. Cosmatos' "Rambo: First Blood Part II" is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. "We Were Soldiers") also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. "Do we get to win this time?" Yes, you do.

Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far. <br /><br />The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!<br /><br />Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't. <br /><br />Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.<br /><br />There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.

The characters were alive and interesting, the plot was excellently paced, the pyro effects were masterfully accomplished, and it takes a basic love triangle story and tosses in a science-fiction element into it. I could identify with many of the characters and their motivations made logical rational sense in the framework of the story.<br /><br />The camera-work was great, the audio clear and accurate, the background music perfectly chosen for effect, the singing firemen a nice talented memorable oddity, the sets brilliantly crafted, and the special effects performed with a skilled talent.<br /><br />I am a tad puzzled how an entire mini-carnival in a chain-store's parking lot could be powered by one single lamppost outlet. That seems impossible to say the least. The fight between the brothers near the end of the movie was brilliant though. Having Jim Varney in a non-clown role was a wonderful touch too as played the semi-serious role of a carny very well.

This film is a perfect example of great escapism! I loved this film and was sucked in from the very beginning. Sure it's just an action flick, but isn't having fun what watching movies is all about? <br /><br />The cast of this film are very strong with likable characters. The friendship between the boys is so realistic and appealing, it's heart warming and hilarious to see a group of teenage boys interact - especially this group of boys!! Sean Astin makes a great rebel, successfully avoiding being a precocious teenager.<br /><br />If you want fun, watch this film! I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I was watching it on a very dirty and old VHS that was terrible quality (Go DVD's!)

This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In "13 Ghosts" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). "The Tingler" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. "Marabre" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great.

Absolutely one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it at least a hundred times and I can't go through it without crying. I defy anyone to watch the reunion of Celie and Nettie, or Shug and father and not feel your eyes getting misty. Whoopie Goldberg should have one an award for amazing portrayal. And for the person who said you can't love the movie if you loved the book, wrong! Im a testament to that.

Of all the reviews I've read, most people have been exceedingly hard on Alexandre. Neither Marie or Veronika ever seemed that they would particularly desperate to keep Alexandre, he being only slightly intelligent though not at all intellectual, as most of us are, however hard it may be for anyone to admit. Alexandre is getting away with life perfectly, being totally taken care of, getting and giving what he wants. the girls are allowing this, veronika loves sex, marie is his patron. is there anything wrong with any of this? is anyone in love? really? i don't think so. Though French New Wave cinema is prone to pretension and so on, it is marvelous simply because of its lack of a need for a plot in order to create emotion. Ease is perfectly lovely and all anyone in Alexandre's position, in an urban area can ask for. I'm looking for a patron, anyone interested?

The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in "Airplane!" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.<br /><br />Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.<br /><br />She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.<br /><br />Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.<br /><br />Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.<br /><br />Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.<br /><br />The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.<br /><br />Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.<br /><br />The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.<br /><br />I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final "explanation," that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!<br /><br />As I kept thinking of Nelson in "Airplane!," I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.<br /><br />In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.<br /><br />This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.

Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.<br /><br />In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.<br /><br />To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.<br /><br />In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.

What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.<br /><br />Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre "HALT!", and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.<br /><br />So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as "you know its a shame you're my sister" he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.<br /><br />So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred "the hammer" Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Lily Powers. She's a waitress for her father's speakeasy in a little crummy mining town. He also sells her to men. She escapes to New York and literally sleeps her way to the top.<br /><br />Originally I had only seen the 71 minute version but it's pretty extreme--for its time. Nowadays it's pretty tame. The movie moves very quickly and has tons of sexual innuendo--some of it comes off as pretty silly (but fun) today. It moves so quickly you can easily ignore that most of it could never happen--even in 1933. There's nothing classic or monumental about this--it's just a quick, gleefully dirty little film that's lots of fun. It only falls apart at the end with a little "moral" ending that the censors demanded. It comes across as unbelievable and stupid (I saw it in a theatre and the audience laughed at it--one guy quite rightfully said "No way") I just saw the uncut 75 minute version which has a different, somewhat tragic and MUCH better ending. This version was thought to be lost until 2004 when it was discovered by mistake! I believe this is the only one in release--but be aware. <br /><br />The acting is good--Stanwyck jumps into her role and plays it WAY over the top. She makes you believe that she enjoys being cruel and sleeping around. There are also strong supporting performances from handsome Donald Cook and George Brent. Also look for a pre-stardom John Wayne in a hilarious bit as a meek and mild office worker! Fun, dirty and fast. I give this a 9.

In 1989 here in NZ wrestling was somewhat of a mega-hype phenom, and who was steering starship at the pinnacle was the orange goblin himself, HULK HOGAN (one of my uber-heroes at this time), so it seems obvious to me now why I adored this movie in 1989-90 when it came out here. HULK HOGAN A.K.A Terry Bollea is a shockingly bad actor and Zeus A.K.A Tiny Lister is worse!!! The story line follows a standard WWE (then WWF) circa 88-91 story line culminating in the standard good guy beat down, hulk up and then get beaten down again story line only to follow that the good guy calls on all his inner strength( gained from eating vitamins, saying prayers etc etc ) to mount the epic come back..... Pretty standard formula here. Worth watching if only for reminiscing your youth!!!!

OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of "shocking scenes" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.

Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.<br /><br />

I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia… Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.

The author of "Nekromantik", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, "Der Todesking" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called "The Brotherhood of the 7th Day", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely "normal" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.<br /><br />The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.<br /><br />Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, "art film" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.<br /><br />Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.<br /><br />This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.<br /><br />The main theme of the movie, "Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III" was released in a limited 666-piece 8" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting "The Nekromantik" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended!

I agree that this film achieved its goals perfectly. I saw it on Showtime late at night as a teenager, and again in college. I thought it was funny. And there are boobs everywhere! It seems like in the late 70s and 80s there were loads of this type of film made, from R-rated films like "Porkys" to soft-core "Au Pair Girls"; it's a shame they seem to have fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity. The thing that made HOTS great was that, like the previous two films, it's a hell of a lot of fun. HOTS is like a girl-power version of "Animal House", with the girls forming a sorority of sorts and engaging in campus bedlam. On a side note, whoever designed the "Hooters" girls outfits must certainly have seen this film.

Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.<br /><br />Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.<br /><br />Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content

What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.

I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.<br /><br />What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."<br /><br />Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??<br /><br />A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.

Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.

I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.<br /><br />So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.<br /><br />Grade F

This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.<br /><br />The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper maché looking hand.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris.

Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.<br /><br />The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing "Spot the Villain" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.<br /><br />A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is.

While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one!

This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.<br /><br />The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.<br /><br />The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.<br /><br />So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.<br /><br />8/10

"Visitor Q" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, "Visitor Q" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)

With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape).

Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.<br /><br />You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me. <br /><br />Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".<br /><br />After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work. <br /><br />LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"<br /><br />In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.

I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time.

this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.<br /><br />full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all<br /><br />

I'm watching this on the Sci-Fi channel right now. It's so horrible I can't stop watching it! I'm a Videographer and this movie makes me sad. I feel bad for anyone associated with this movie. Some of the camera work is good. Most is very questionable. There are a few decent actors in the flick. Too bad they're surrounded by what must have been the director's relatives. That's the only way they could have been qualified to be in a movie! Music was a little better than the acting. If you get around to watching this I hope it's because there was absolutely NO other option! The sequel (yes sequel) is coming on now....I think I'll skip it! Jason

No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.<br /><br />"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.<br /><br />And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.<br /><br />The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.<br /><br />Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.

The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.<br /><br />Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).

I had the good fortune to be at Perris Island in the fall of 1959. The DI showed one evening at the outdoor theater directly in front of our barracks, Plt 162, B Co, 1st Bn, 1st ITR.<br /><br />Although we hadn't been there long enough to even think about seeing a movie, we could hear those that were laughing. It's one of the many indelible memories of my thirteen weeks at PI.<br /><br />At some later date, I got to actually see it in a theater. I'm still convinced that, to date, it remains the most realistic portrayal of the experience in the late 1950's ever done. No one has done it better than Jack Webb...

This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.

This film has very tight and well planned dialogue, acting and choreography.<br /><br />Recommended film for anyone who wants to see masterful writing and plot.<br /><br />Question: Does anyone know where the house is actually located? It is one of the most interesting houses, a 19thC windmill.

no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.

I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been "Mystery Science Theatre" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects. <br /><br />This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes. <br /><br />Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.<br /><br />Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.

I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.

After I've seen this movie I find it hard to understand why so many people seem to hate this movie. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 250 of all times, but in it's genre it is a great movie. I know, not many people find it amusing to see how a legendary story like 'Robin Hood' is turned into a comedy. Many people still seem to believe that some things shouldn't be laughed with ... they are wrong. <br /><br />Mel Brooks has done an excellent job with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I have seen the original Robin Hood movies as well, but I never had such a good time when watching them as I had with this one. It's just one continuation of hilarious moments and parodies on famous people and movies (Winston Churchil, The Godfather...).<br /><br />I recommend everyone who wants to have a good laugh to watch this movie. To those who think Robin Hood shouldn't be messed with, you're wrong, but you better don't watch it because you'll probably be offended by it. I give this movie an 8/10.

My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?<br /><br />Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft. <br /><br />It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!<br /><br />It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)<br /><br />Avoid! Any other film will do better.

Its unfortunate that someone decided to spin off on the best horror movies of all time in my book. This poor copy steals lots of material from the first three films going as far as even copying how persons die and what will happen in the future to the key characters and it basically tries to cram in three films into one and fails. It fails even to create a good scary atmosphere for one (except with the odd exception where the impressive choral music brings back memories of the old films).<br /><br />The only thing we can be thankful for is that there has not been an Omen V.

I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).<br /><br />As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.<br /><br />Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.<br /><br />To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.<br /><br />Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.<br /><br />Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).<br /><br />I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.<br /><br />My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!<br /><br />I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.<br /><br />Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!

A day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...SKIP IT!

I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it really exists.<br /><br />Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for "monsters" or "Nightbreed," substitute "Jews," and for the Canadians/humans, substitute, "Nazis," and you're supposed to get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe.<br /><br />One major objection I had was that while the underground city was interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of decor.<br /><br />The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters. But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view.

Again, like many other TV Shows, a certain actor/actresses in thrust into the limelight, in this case Miranda Cosgrove, having built up her reputation in previous Movies/Series (especially by Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider. She is now the star of the show, gets to sing the soundtrack ( which she DID NOT WRITE and thus gets even more fame from that). Wonderful? It creates as much imbalance in popularity vs her other co-stars, especially Nathan Kress, who is continually thrust into minor rolls in each episode, except iDont Want to Fight. Cosgrove's music would never have met the charts without this show and her singing the main theme song (which was not written by her) and other covers such as About You Now and Stay my Baby. Let's not forget that she lip sync/sings her song live too. Is that how you create vocalist nowadays?<br /><br />Back to the show, Cosgrove reveals more physically by acting scenes in a bikini, Hawaiian hula type bra and mentioned bra many times through out. Bras and seen in many cases (though not of the other actresses). Wedgies are mentioned, panties have been mentioned once. Og let us not forget "Oh My God" a come phrase (are any of the scriptwriters/actors Christian?) Granted that the show is not meant to be just for kids, I'm surprised at the multitude of mentions of the female undergarment, especially in the first episode, where the phrase "pointy boobs" were mentioned. I'm not sure whether kids would thus refrain from saying that at home/in school afterwards. <br /><br />It's not that I'm against the mentioning or showing of female undergarments (which girls will wear), but for a show from Nickelodeon, the people in charge should have realised that kids would get the exposure to such stuff. I doubt that other Nickelodeon shows have such content in them.<br /><br />As mentioned is other reviews, the laughter track is extremely annoying and unnecessary in many parts--for example, when the character Sam cries, how on earth is that a time to laugh? It distracts people from getting the joke and is used almost in every sentence.<br /><br />As mentioned, Cosgrove is made the star of the show and thus gains the utmost fame and support from die hard fans, who even scolded a hotel staff when she is told to keep her noise level down (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk0gtfUk98U). Jennette McCurdy is the second star of the show but she faces competition from Cosgrove in the music industry (compare the popularity of her new single vs Cosgrove's covers). As noted, the third co-star Nathan Kress is the least noted of the lot. He is portrayed as a atypical boy who suffers the brunt of bullying by a girl and other boys but somehow a wizard at technology. His height in early episodes make him a cute actor but unusual given his character's crush on Carly/Cosgrove. Beyond that, Kress isn't breaking into the music industry and as Cosgrove's fame grows with each episode, Kress falls behind. I would bet that he is the least paid of all the three actors.<br /><br />The content of the show is of course fictional, but also lets one wonder how it fits into a comedy series at certain times (thus the laughter track is used).It also contains several continuity errors (how can your father be and Air Force Colonel on a submarine? US Special Forces have their own branches, and the Air Force doesn't use US submarines--that is for SEALs). A unique feature is that of allowing viewers to submit their own videos to be shown during or after the episodes, but again the videos somehow do not meet the theme of comedy.<br /><br />Once again, it is a show that is riddled with mentions of the female undergarments, exposure of skin, and over used laughter tracks. It is a series which thrusts a teen actress so far into the crowd such that her songs/actions are excessive supported by her fans, leaving her co Stars behind.

This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?<br /><br />Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.

I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.<br /><br />The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel "Descent Into Hell" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.<br /><br />What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.

SAIMIN <br /><br />(USA: The Hypnotist /UK: Hypnosis) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Stereo SR<br /><br />Following a series of bizarre and apparently unrelated 'suicides', an experienced Tokyo detective (Ken Utsui) enlists the help of a young psychoanalyst (Goro Inagaki) who believes the victims were acting on a post-hypnotic suggestion. But their subsequent investigations reveal an even darker force at work, linked to a young girl (Miho Kanno) whose life has been blighted by sadistic abuse...<br /><br />Based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, this densely-plotted mystery takes inspiration from a variety of sources (Italian gialli, traditional Japanese ghost stories, etc.), though some of the images in the climactic showdown reveal a more immediate influence: The recent commercial success of Hideo Nakata's RING (1998). For all its ambition, however, SAIMIN is a routine potboiler which stumbles badly after a powerhouse opening (the 'suicides' are particularly impressive, despite some feeble CGI effects), though director Masayuki Ochiai - who co-wrote the script with Yasushi Fukuda - rallies proceedings for an extended finale in which the narrative's startling secrets are finally revealed. Ochiai is best known for his film adaptation of novel-turned-video-game PARASITE EVE (1997) - which also starred leading man Inagaki (a member of Japanese pop group SMAP) - and while SAIMIN echoes that movie's strong visual sense, it falls short as drama, and most of the characters are mere ciphers, undermining the storyline's emotional pay-off. Which is a shame, because the final half hour is galvanized by a series of dynamic set-pieces - most notably, a concert hall sequence in which Dvorak's 'New World' symphony is transformed into an instrument of murder! - and Ochiai is well-served by an excellent production team. However, those lured by the promise of gory carnage may be disappointed - the film is long on atmospherics and short on splatter.<br /><br />Performances are varied, due to the script's limitations, but Kanno (TOMIE) is outstanding as a young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder - which, the subtitles on the print under review assures us, isn't recognized as a viable medical condition in Japan! - who falls prey to a sleazy TV hypnotist (Takeshi Masu), a prime suspect in the murders. Inagaki is bland in a one-dimensional role, and he's constantly upstaged by Utsui, a veteran performer whose career stretches back to the "Sûpâ Jaiantsu" series of the 1950's.<br /><br />(Japanese dialogue)

For my humanities quarter project for school, i chose to do human trafficking. After some research on the internet, i found this DVD and ordered it. I just finished watching it and I am still thinking about it. All I can say is "Wow". It is such a compelling story of a 12 year old Vietnamese girl named Holly and an American man named Patric who tries to save her. The ending leaves you breathless, and although it's not a happily-ever-after ending, it is very realistic. It is amazing and I recommend it to anyone! You really connect with Holly and Patric and your heart breaks for her and because of what happens to her. I loved it so much and now I want to know what happens next!

An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?<br /><br />Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).<br /><br />The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.<br /><br />His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.<br /><br />After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.<br /><br />None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.<br /><br />Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).

Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.<br /><br />*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.<br /><br />The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.<br /><br />Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.<br /><br />It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.<br /><br />Ten out of Ten

Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.<br /><br />Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.<br /><br />Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.<br /><br />The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10

this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says.

Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd...The strangest, most off-putting, but most wonderful Broadway musical. It is chilling, funny, and moving all at once through Sondheim's most memorable and incredible score and sharp performances. George Hearn is incomparable in the title role, bringing a strong voice and dead on (no pun intended) impersonation of the legendary demon barber, while Angela Lansbury provides the comic relief as she cheerfully grinds up his victims into meat pies. If you just allow yourself to enjoy it, "Sweeney Todd" is a real treat.

Another awful movie from Hollywood. This time a female helps the revolution in a central American country. yeah yeah yeah. Hey lets make a movie without any sense of realism AT ALL. I am so sick of movies like this one. The actors and actresses are lousy, the effects are cheesy and the dialog horrible. And suddenly i see John Rhys-Davies as the evil president. From Gimli to Hugo Louis Ramos. I bet he is very proud of this. Well i shouldn't have expected much of this movie and i didn't. And i am glad cause this sucks bigtime. I wonder what kind of people who like this movie. My guess is younger people aged 12-16. And i guess some people like because of Kristin Dattilo. Well i am in neither of those group and i hate it. Rating: 2

This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.

With a cheap pound shop having just opened,i thought that it was worth looking to see if their were any cheap DVDs that looked good.and while the back of the cover made this sound like a Jeepers Creepers type of film,it is actually an anthology film! and thought one or two of the stories feel very familiar.Its still a fun light horror/comedy. The plots:<br /><br />Story one:The classic.<br /><br />A young couple feel the it is time that they should try to in prove their financial life by picking up a $1500 car.But,when the guy goes to pick a car,a car starts to talk to him.The car (called Banns) says that to get everything that he has ever wanted in life,that he must buy Baans for $5000.So while the guys relationship crumbles,Baans does everything he can to show who really is in charge.<br /><br />Story two:Kitchen culture.<br /><br />A guy that might get thrown out by his land lord,due to how messy his flat is,discovers that due to keeping a tuna pasta in his fridge for six months,the it has now moulded and evolved into a green mouldy version of himself!.And while they start off as friends,they end up having a big falling out,the leads to a final battle to see if the real guy or his fridge clone will survive.<br /><br />Story three:Too good to be true.<br /><br />A girl signs up with a dating agency and she gets matched with a guy the is perfect for her.But she is unsure that the guy is too perfect,and when she thinks that she sees him 'shut down' she starts to get spooked. View on the film:<br /><br />The first thing that i have to mention is the rating for the film in england,where it has been given an eighteen rating,even thought it has no nudity,swearing or blood at all.And the other odd thing about all the stories is that they all have happy endings,where the goodies win!.And while the first story is too close to the Stephen King classic Christine,the second story is easily the highlight of the film,with director Tom Parkinson making the nuttiness of the story feel like a low-budget Muppets episode!.<br /><br />Final view on the film<br /><br />While it does have a bit of a 'remake; feel,their is enough wackiness to make this a good horror 'comedy'.

Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10

Miike makes a children's adventure film, not unlike The Neverending Story. It's actually one of my least favorite of the director's films. Even the worst Miike is better than a good many films, though, and The Great Yokai War has a lot in it that's worth recommending. It's at least as loud and obnoxious as most American kiddie flicks. I might think kids themselves would find a lot to like in it (the DVD includes an English dub), but, like all of Miike's films, it can tend to move very slowly. That means you've got kind of a weird unevenness, where sometimes there's a loud action sequence and the next scene will drag on forever as characters converse. The story itself isn't very good, either, and Miike's perpetual flaw of incoherency rears its ugly head. Most of what I liked came from the technical side of things. This has to be Miike's most expensive movie, and it looks fantastic. "Yokai" are Japanese spirits, and they come in all different, fantastical forms, and the costume designers, special effects crew, and everyone else involved in the designs just did an outstanding job. I've seen the 1968 film this one is supposedly based on (Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare), and the cheesy rubber-suit monsters you can find there have been transformed into more believable entities using state-of-the-art makeup and special effects. I especially liked the look of one of the bad guys (or girls, in this case), Agi, who sports dark eye shadow, a tight, white outfit, a white beehive hairdo and a whip. She's played, incidentally, by Chiaki Kuriyama, whom you might remember as Lucy Liu's teenage henchgirl in Kill Bill: Vol. 1. The hero of the film is played by Ryunosuke Kamiki, who provided voices for Miyazaki's Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.

Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.<br /><br />Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.<br /><br />Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.<br /><br />The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.<br /><br />Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.

Once a wise man from India once said, "First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us." Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time "Masten Thrust" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before! <br /><br />This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format. <br /><br />"Be afraid, be VERY afraid!"

I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading.

Like another ticket buyer I saw a nice cute poster about this film, it's five star review, and awards won. Thought what the heck, let's by a ticket for myself and my two sons. BAD IDEA. The movie was not a family film, it was gratuitous, and it contained nothing worth watching.

Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.<br /><br />

This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.<br /><br />Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity.

This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".<br /><br />"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.<br /><br />Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.<br /><br />What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.<br /><br />Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?<br /><br />For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.<br /><br />You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.<br /><br />3/10

Charles McDougall's resume includes directing episodes on 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', Queer as Folk', 'Big Love', 'The Office', etc. so he comes with all the credentials to make the TV film version of Meg Wolitzer's novel SURRENDER, DOROTHY a success. And for the most part he manages to keep this potentially sappy story about sudden death of a loved one and than manner in which the people in her life react afloat.<br /><br />Sara (Alexa Davalos) a beautiful unmarried young woman is accompanying her best friends - gay playwright Adam (Tom Everett Scott), Adam's current squeeze Shawn (Chris Pine), and married couple Maddy (Lauren German) and Peter (Josh Hopkins) with their infant son - to a house in the Hamptons for a summer vacation. The group seems jolly until a trip to the local ice creamery by Adam and Sara) results in an auto accident which kills Sara. Meanwhile Sara's mother Natalie Swedlow (Diane Keaton) who has an active social life but intrusively calls here daughter constantly with the mutual greeting 'Surrender, Dorothy', is playing it up elsewhere: when she receives the phone call that Sara is dead she immediately comes to the Hamptons where her overbearing personality and grief create friction among Sara's friends. Slowly but surely Natalie uncovers secrets about each of them, thriving on talking about Sara as though doing so would bring her to life. Natalie's thirst for truth at any cost results in major changes among the group and it is only through the binding love of the departed Sara that they all eventually come together.<br /><br />Diane Keaton is at her best in these roles that walk the thread between drama and comedy and her presence holds the story together. The screenplay has its moments for good lines, but it also has a lot of filler that becomes a bit heavy and morose making the actors obviously uncomfortable with the lines they are given. Yes, this story has been told many times - the impact of sudden death on the lives of those whose privacy is altered by disclosures - but the film moves along with a cast pace and has enough genuine entertainment to make it worth watching. Grady Harp

This film was a new direction for Natalie Portman. A much more adult role, though she comes to it from the traces of a child in the movie itself. Ann,(Portman) and Susan Sarandon, who plays her newly divorced mother, Adele, travel from a small town in the middle of nowhere to Beverly Hills. There these tortured souls try to come to terms with their new life and their new relationship as Portman's character grows up. Unknowingly at first to Adele, she grows up and becomes a better mother for it.<br /><br />Ann sees her mother telling her she wants to be an actress, or so she thinks. Adele uses that crutch every time there are problems in their lives. We see their struggle as mother and daughter come to terms between themselves and with being alone, having left their old lives behind.<br /><br />The acting is top notch from both of them. They seemingly become mother and daughter before your eyes. You can almost feel there is a bond there beyond the actual movie.<br /><br />Though this movie really doesn't take us to any new ground in these types of films, the fact that the acting is well done, and the story isn't too flawed, let's me recommend it.<br /><br />I will say however, it will probably go away soon, I don't believe it can have the staying power needed for a huge Christmas season of movies starting in a week or so. See it now before this happens if you like either of these actresses.

This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back!

The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.<br /><br />2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.<br /><br />3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.<br /><br />4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.<br /><br />The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.<br /><br />As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.<br /><br />b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?