It seems like this is the only film that John Saxon ever directed, and that he had the good sense to stop after that and stay in front of the camera. This movie is a dog, from start to finish, and it's dull and wooden with nothing much going for it. A Viet Nam war hero takes a job working for a mob boss, gets a bit too friendly with the wife and then the wife is killed by the mob boss himself & the war hero framed and sent to prison, death row, specifically. Now, this particular prison has been experimenting on inmates and is testing some formula that will turn men into the ultimate killing machine (a zombie). Of course, everything goes wrong and then there's all these infected people trapped in the prison, some of whom are turning into zombies and the rest who suddenly just don't want to be there anymore. This just goes on and on and on with nothing particularly much to show or say for itself, and I stopped it before the end, which seemed like it was coming a few times but no, it was apparently only getting set to take off on a different and equally dull path. If one watched to the end they may well become a zombie themselves, so don't risk it. 2 out of 10.


I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one.


I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised.


This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts.


This game was really great and quite a challenge. It has a great, spooky story line and the graphics are also very good. I would recommend this game to all Horror fans and is very gripping from start to finish. The only problem with this game is that i would have liked more weapons but thats just me. A truly great game for RPG and Shoot'em'up fans.>


Kids - of whatever age - do not want to know about their parents' sex lives. And grown-up children are often seriously baffled and disconcerted by any evidence that aging parents possess an active libido. Lastly, many moviegoers are very uncomfortable watching a dowdy, frumpy widow who would pass unnoticed almost anywhere discover her aching capacity and need for raw passion with a handsome man half her age."The Mother" is a provocative look at a scarcely filmed reality - a woman who isn't ready to stay home, watch "the telly," and vegetate after her husband of nearly three decades, and a controlling, dominating chap at that, packs it in with a massive heart attack.May (Anne Reid) and her husband have two children, each dysfunctional in his or her own way. The male son lives with a beautiful wife who may well be driving him to the Bankruptcy Court with her extravagant commercial venture. Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw), is a teacher with aspirations of succeeding as a writer. She's attractive, not pretty, and she seems to have a close relationship with mum - at first.Back at her house after burying her husband, May determines to not stay there. Rejecting typical widowhood with its legacy of boring days and no adventure, she goes to stay with Paula who has a young son. Paula's boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig), is a ruggedly handsome contractor who seems to be taking an awfully long time to complete an addition to May's son's house. May is quite taken with hard-drinking, coke-sniffing Darren whose treatment of Paula ought to have alerted May that he was, for sure, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Cads.What follows is a torrid affair between Darren and the besotted and now bubblingly alive (dare I say reborn?) widow. The love scenes are graphic but take second place to amateur artist May's pen and ink sketches of their trysts which then play a role in the enfolding drama (or debacle, take your pick).The theater in Manhattan was packed for today's early afternoon showing with well over half the audience in the range of May's age. That some were shocked or disturbed to see her disporting herself with erotic abandon in the arms of a much younger man is an understatement. This blindingly honest look at an older woman's awakened passion after decades of dutifully obeying her husband's desire that she stay at home and raise kids (she also mentions he didn't like her to have friends-what a guy) surfaces a number of issues. While May's dalliance with Darren doesn't constitute incest, there are real psychological dimensions, and issues, with a mother bedding her daughter's lover. And Paula isn't made of the stoutest stuff to begin with. The affair, once disclosed, allows the peeling open of the mother-daughter relationship which, from Paula's viewpoint, left something to be desired. Ms. Bradshaw is excellent in the role of a daughter who wants her mother's support as well as her love-she hasn't been dealt a terrible hand by life but it isn't a bed of roses either.May is strong in her resolve to both acknowledge her sexuality and expect, indeed demand, a future of happiness. But she is also inescapably vulnerable. She's fishing in uncharted emotional waters. Who controls her relationship with Darren and why are difficult issues for her to understand, much less resolve. In her sixties, she's still a work in progress."Something's Gotta Give" recently showcased mature sexuality but in an amusingly antiseptic way assuring no viewer would be discomfited. After all it's Jack Nicholson and the always beautiful Diane Keaton cavorting in the world of the rich. And to insure that no serious psycho-social issues were explored, Keaton's young girlfriend, Amanda Peet, daughter of Keaton, not only blesses the match but insures that the audience knows she and her old(er) would-be lover never hopped into the sack.No easy out here. Anne Reid's inspired performance forces discomfort on some while drawing respect from others. Her naked body bursts with sexuality for some and appears absurd as an object of physical attraction to others (the comments of audience members leaving today reflected all these views).Kudos to director Roger Michell for tackling a fascinating story with verve and empathy.9/10.


This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel!


Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.


This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.


Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their "jobs" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.


Worst. Movie. Ever.What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original "Dead" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?1/10


This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. The best thing about it is that it does not diminish them in the eyes of the viewer. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great people like David are flawed people who find their faith and greatness in facing their flaws.The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own truthful but larger than life style of acting is quite at home here. She is ever the seductress, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like "The Robe" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country ruthlessly but was at one time a faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today.


The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.


I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water. Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on. Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend. I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation. I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter.


'Arms and the Man' is one of Shaw's funniest plays if handled correctly, and this production does a good enough job. Helena Bonham-Carter, pre-film stardom, is Raina, the daughter of a military family, who has a peacock of a fiancé (Patrick Ryecart), and who shelters a soldier from the enemy (Pip Torrens) during a raid on the town.Full of colour and energy, this production rips along at a good pace, and if Bonham-Carter and Patsy Kensit as the maid are outshone a bit by the rest of the cast, they still hold their ground. Kika Markham and Dinsdale Landen as the parents are delightful, and the whole play is generally a happy one.Highly recommended.


This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot.


In the year 1985 (my birth year) Steven Spielberg directed an emotionally strong and unforgettable story of a young African-American girl Celie (Debut role for Whoopi Goldberg) whose life is followed through rough times. The story begins from the year 1909 when Celie is only 14 years old. She has given birth two children for her father. Celie has a younger sister Nettie with whom she is inseparable. A widower lays his eyes on Nettie but their father gives Celie to him. It is the beginning of an era of horrible abuse and constant controlling. Women are inferior of men and especially being an African-American woman their rights are less than a zero. Celie's story is a true survival story."The Color Purple" is a master-piece and underestimated film of Spielberg. He should make more drama which "The Color Purple" and "Schindler's List" are good notion.The cast is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg is known better as a ravingly funny comedienne but the introducing role as Celie is a remarkable word that she really can pull of heavy drama. Danny Glover was surprisingly nasty "Mister". I have never seen him in a such an evil role. The talk-show icon Oprah Winfrey is brilliant as a strong-willed Sofia.Warning! Prepare to have a number of tissues with you when watching this film. You can really connect to the story of the strong sisterhood. Especially if you have as close relationship with your siblings like I have with my sister.Big applauds to Mr. Spielberg!


What a moving film. I have a dear friend who is in her sixties and for the past 15 years has told me that people don't see her anymore, and she longs for companionship. Being in my late 40s I am beginning to see what she has been complaining about. You are no longer youthful, beautiful or touchable. When May says "...this lump of a body..." wow. How our bodies change and how we are told it is no longer beautiful. I love when she begins to change what she wears...the colorful scarf...no longer the frumpy wife.It is a sad and wonderful picture at the same time. Sad in that May betrays her daughter's trust...beautiful in that she finds herself through the difficulty of the affair, and chooses to move on and finally have her own life. I love the character's daring to even initiate the love affair.Mostly I love the movie because finally it is a picture that shows the intricate nature of relationships, be they familial or not. We see Paula's vulnerability, yet she will have what she wants at all costs...(when she tells her mum that she will have a baby for Darren whether he wants one or not after her mother asks if Darren even wants a child). The movie hits the mark on the how relationships can change, and yet reveals what has been there all along, dormant. May has stifled her own creativity to raise a family. A family that she didn't really want, but was "something you just did when she was young". I love the scene when Darren calls her an old tart, and she smiles and says "I was never called that before". It was truly a gem of a movie.And Daniel Craig. Well, i just love him. I was pleasantly surprised. Not only is he pleasant on the eyes, he is a real talent. What a neat role. He is much more than any 007 that is for sure and I look forward to seeing him in more roles of this nature. The scene where he is pleasuring May and the look he gives her is sort of a look of wonder that he has such control over this woman, and also one of pleasure of being able to give this to her. He is actually enjoying giving her pleasure. A wonderful scene. The contrast is the love scene with Bruce. Bruce is totally absorbed with his own pleasure...two completely different men.Alas...I wonder where is my Darren?


This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets!


This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping "Was that it?!" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz


The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.


I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.


i first saw this movie at the sundance film festival this year, and being a teenager myself i found the movie to be quite appealing. these kids are out of the ordinary and very unexpected to be in a movie of this stature but with the right dialog and junk they made the movie a complete success. i enjoyed this movie more then others but i highly recommend releasing and watching this movie. it is a mixture of witty comments and hilarious reality. capturing the essence of high school, high school record has topped my favorites list and hopefully has a chance to be released into theaters. i truly thank all of the kids who put the hard work into making this film, it helped me cry my eyes our in laughter.


I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script...


Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....


THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)Sound format: Mono(35mm and 70mm release prints)A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.(English version)


In the early to mid 1970's, Clifford Irving proposed to write the ultimate biography of Howard Hughes,claiming to have spent months preparing for the book,engaged in interviews with the reclusive millionaire. When all of this turned out to be false,Irving was accused of perjury & spent several years behind bars (although always admitting his findings were accurate). Flash forward to 20001,several months prior to September 11th, a book,entitled 'Forbidden Love' (published in the U.S. as 'Honor Lost:Love And Death In Modern Day Jordan') by a previously unknown author by the name of Norma Khouri,a woman from Jordan,who reported on the death by mercy killing of her best friend Dalia,due to the fact that Dalia,being from a devout Muslim background,was dating a Christian man. It,like Irving's biography on Hughes was revealed as a potential hoax. Australian film maker,Anna Broinowski attempts to delve into the quagmire that was Khouri's attempts to clear herself of the lie(s). Over the time frame of 104 minutes,the film attempts to reveal is Norma Khouri telling the truth,or is she just a compulsive liar,with an agenda/vendetta of her own?. Interview footage with those who know/knew her (including an ex husband,her publisher,and others) tell their side of the story. This is a toothsome,well produced documentary that manages to point many fingers at just as many potential guilty parties. Not rated,but contains pervasive bad language & a re-enactment of the grisly murder scene,played over a few times (but nothing nearly as graphic & disturbing as what one would see in the latest torture porn epic,such as Saw:Part 84). Not a good choice for the little ones.


Previously, I wrote that I loved "Titanic", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0. In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in "Titanic". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for "Titanic", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of "Titanic" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical "bombs" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). "Heaven's Gate" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). "Big Top Pee-wee" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). "Cat People" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). "Blind Date" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH "TITANIC"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN "TITANIC", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, "Titanic" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?


I have to agree with MR. Caruso Jr Lanza,s was the finest voice god had to offer if only he could have found the courage to go for broke leave Hollywood and head for the opera he could have been the American Caruso everyone says he could have been but in any case he is a fantastic introduction to the art form no bones about it and if thats the way its gonna be so be it. see the film you'll see why Mr Lanza still come up in discussion even in my house. Someone says Pavarotti i say MARIO LANZA.As for the film itself when will it be on DVD they must have it restored and VHS isn't good enough but this should also be the only Lanza film put on DVD the others are down right bad and boring .


Oscar-caliber performance by Peter Falk in an Oscar-caliber-written role. I loved the nuanced, balanced exploration of a long-time marriage - how often do we get that in films, where usually the movie ends when boy & girl get together? This is a movie for adults, a complex view through the eyes of all parties - husband, wife, son - how each have adapted to each other in the past and grow during the story. On top of that, it gave me about 10 major belly laughs, and I'm one of those people who usually sits unamused when the rest of an audience is laughing. This was one of the few truly funny movies I've seen. Great, original jokes.


It is fitting on a musical Sunday to get your heart a pumping, and no one can do that better than Little Richard. The man could sing the drawers off the ladies and defined rock and roll.Look to Leon to provide a definitive characterization, as he has done so with David Ruffin in The Temptations and Jackie Wilson in Mr. Rock 'n' Roll: The Alan Freed Story.This was a fascinating biopic as we saw Little Richard struggle with his father, with his church and with himself over just who he was. He won the battle and there is no one else that has his voice or his style.


This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!


While I would say I enjoy the show, I expected something completely different from when I first saw 'What I like about you' I expected to find something along the lines of 'All That' (I am not sure if it is going on anymore) but I have to say I do like the show and while i don't classify it as a breakthrough show, it is very charming and I do like the chemistry between the characters as well (including the supporting cast)I would definitely say that it is great to see Wesley Jonathan back on the screen because I really loved him in City Guy. I had also seen the woman who plays Valerie's friend in Popular and while I think that was an okay show, I do not really like her character in this show because she's just not my cup of tea but she rounds it out pretty well


Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.


Oh dear . Yet another example of " Oireland " and religion . No doubt we'll be seeing some depressing nonsense featuring some " hunky and macho freedom fighters " from the IRA . Well that was my initial reaction when the credits started but just over an hour and a half later I was in a state of shock . What a superb movie The story starts on the day of the wedding between Sean Cloney and Sheila Kelly in the 1950s . There is a slight problem since they're getting married in the catholic church and that is Sheila is a protestant but in order for the wedding to happen Sheila takes a pledge that her children will be brought up catholic and attend the catholic school when they're old enough . The story - Which is set in the 1950s - then jumps forward a few years when the Cloney daughters are about to start school but Sheila has decided they'll be attending the local protestant school much to the disgust of local priest Father Stafford . From there things escalate Let me put my cards on the table and state that despite having both Irish catholic and Scottish protestant heritage I was brought up as agnostic and have considered myself as an atheist throughout my adult life . In fact when it comes to religion I consider myself a Marxist and religion is a cynical weapon used to manipulate people . A LOVE DIVIDED shows what happens when self appointed moral guardians take it upon themselves to tell other people what to think and believe . May I have the temerity to state that if Karl Marx saw this movie he'd love it and call it a masterpiece ? Perhaps I shouldn't since the drama of this story shows what happens when other people do your thinking for you In reply to the couple of reviewers who have claimed this movie is propaganda of the worst sort I don't claim to know the exact details of what happened in County Wexford and there's no denying that Father Stafford and his flock of catholic sheep are portrayed as being the bad guys but Sheila isn't blameless herself . Think about a woman living in a rural village in 1950s Ireland who takes a pledge to bring her children up as catholics then changes her mind and believes there will be no consequences of this ? This is a warning against taking pledges and not keeping to them . Not only that but she disappears to let other people pick up the pieces of their shattered lives . There's also something that no one else has picked up upon and that is that the only character with any type of moral sense is former IRA man Andy Bailey who is shown as being gallant not because he was a former IRA member ( That makes a change . We're not talking about THE DEVIL'S OWN here ) but simply because he is an atheist who has decided to think for himself A LOVE DIVIDED is a superb movie that has a lot to say for itself , all of which I agree with . If there's any sort of criticism it's that it feels too much like a TVM rather than a cinematic movie but believe me I can live with that and is essential viewing to anyone who thinks religion is the opium of the masses


I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white"


Drew Barrymore is an actress that has gone through bad periods, not only in her career, but in her personal life too. After being a prodigy child actress she descended into obscurity with mediocre films of low quality. While she has recovered from that dark past, this movie stays as a reminder of Drew Barrymore's worst days.The movie starts with an interesting premise, very reminiscent to Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain"; with a plot dealing with multiple personality disorder that sets the story for a horror/thriller. Barrymore stars as Holly Gooding, a young woman who is trying to make a new life in California after a traumatic event of her past in which apparently her other personality killed her mother.Suddenly, her past returns to haunt her as her evil personality is back in her life willing to ruin her new found peace and her new found love. In the middle of the chaos his new boyfriend, Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern), will try to help Holly to face the demons of her past.Unlike De Palma's underrated thriller, "Doppelganger" is for the most part a mediocre film that not only never fulfills it's purpose, it also concludes in one of the worst endings of movie history. While Barrymore is definitely not at her best, she manages to keep her dignity with an above average performance. The rest of the cast however range from mediocre to painfully bad over-the-top performances, although Leslie Hope manages to be among the best of them.The script is full of clichés and De Palma's influence is quite obvious. While the movie tries to be original by making literary references in almost every line, the dialogs are dull and the wooden acting certainly doesn't do any good. It has a fair share of nudity and for strange reasons, and excessive use of special effects.The make-up effects are done by the outstanding KNB and are really among the few good things in the movie. However, the bizarre over-use of the effects in the totally out of context ending decreases the impact of KNB's work and makes cheesy what in a different movie would be amazing.The fact that this is a B-Movie is no excuse for it's low quality, as with a better and more coherent script this could had been an interesting movie. Sadly, all we have here is a mediocre film that gets worse every second. Worthy for Barrymore's beauty. 3/10


Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended!


Legendary movie producer Walt Disney brought three of the world's greatest fairy tales to the screen. They remain among the most popular animated films of all time. The first was his groundbreaking classic "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" released in 1937. The last was the then-under appreciated "Sleeping Beauty" which made it's debut in 1959. In between these two was perhaps his most satisfying adaptation of a classic fairy tale: "Cinderella" (1950). Of the three films, "Cinderella" is the one most faithful to its origins. Ironically, unlike "Snow White", which for better or worse, became for many the definitive version of the story. "Cinderella" did not follow the same path. Although it was a hit and, like "Snow White", was responsible for restoring the dwindling Disney fortunes, it never achieved the same audience recognition which it certainly deserved. Disney, for once, did himself proud, electing not to tamper with a classic, instead elaborating and adding substance to the tale, rather than rewriting it for the screen. The result was enchanting. A combination of superb animation (in beautifully soft Technicolor) and the perfect voice talents brought the story to life with a radiance that endures to this day. Ilene Woods, who was a radio performer, recorded demonstration discs of the songs as a favor to the authors of the material, Al Hoffman, Mack David, and Jerry Livingston. When Disney heard them, he knew he had found his Cinderella. And indeed he had. Woods heartfelt renditions of "A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes", "So This Is Love" and "Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale" are perfect. Eleanor Audley, who would go on to voice Maleficent in "Sleeping Beauty", masterfully captured the icy cruelty of the stepmother, while Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss were convincingly nasty stepsisters. Luis Van Rooten admirably performed as both the King and the Grand Duke, and James Macdonald was endearing as both Jaq and Gus, Cinderella's devoted mice. William Phipps has little dialog as the prince (future talk show host Mike Douglas provided his singing voice) but film (and Disney) veteran, Verna Felton was born to play the fairy godmother, and she made the best number, (the Oscar-nominated "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo") her own show-stopper. Among the artists responsible for the "look" of the film, was Mary Blair, whose inspired use of color was greatly admired by Disney. Her elegant French-period backgrounds add tremendously to the quality of the movie. But, most important of all' are the believable characters--from Cinderella, right down to Lucifer, the stepmother's deliciously evil cat. They bring both life and vibrancy to the often told story, something very difficult to create in an animated film.In conjunction with the film's 55-year anniversary, (and, not so coincidentally, the coming holiday season) "Cinderella" has just been released on a special edition DVD. It simply has never looked better. The fully restored film must be seen to be appreciated--suffice it to say, it looks wonderful. An enhanced stereo soundtrack has been added, and serves the music well. The DVD extras, now a standard part of Disney Platinum Editions, are too numerous to list here, but as usual, some are directed towards children, some are slanted to adults, and the rest fall somewhere in between. But real fans will want to get the Deluxe Gift Set, because, along with an actual cell from the film and eight character sketches, it includes a 160-page hardback book, which not only incorporates most of the material found in the book with the 1995 special edition home video release, but much more as well. As usual for Disney, "Cinderella" will only be available for a limited time. So, if like me, you are a "Cinderella" lover, get it NOW! This edition is truly a "Dream Come True."


"Rois et Reine" is a sprawling mess of a movie which will probably irritate as many viewers as it delights. It focuses by turns on ex-lovers Nora (Emanuelle Devos)and Ismael (Mathieu Amalric) as they each confront a major crisis in their now separate lives. While Nora's story is played straight and is sombre in tone, Ismael's is played mainly for laughs, although it's not particularly funny. Nora's crisis is triggered by the terminal illness of her father Louis (Maurice Garrel), and Ismael's by his sudden incarceration in a mental hospital at the instigation of a mysterious third party. Ismael and Louis are just two of the males who have shaped Nora's life, and in turn have been shaped by her, the most notable others being her now deceased first lover Pierre and their young son Elias. As events past and present are played out for the audience, and the ex-lovers become involved in each other's lives once more, it gradually emerges that Nora's personal take on her life story may be less reliable than first meets the eye.Cult director Arnaud Desplechin has fashioned a considerable oddity here, one which has garnered major plaudits in France. He wilfully eschews established narrative convention and develops the movie via a series of dramatic shifts in mood and tone. Had this approach been founded on a coherent unifying core idea or theme it might have worked, but it's not clear in the end what exactly Desplechin's film is actually about. Heavy-handed allusions to Greek mythology and Freudian theory are evidently freighted with meaning but, at least for this unschooled movie-goer, remain less than helpful in illuminating and interpreting the lives of the characters. At other times the treatment lapses into kitsch but the use of the anodyne "Moon River" as the film's theme tune suggests this is probably deliberate.**Spoiler alert** I suspect a major theme of the movie is the not very original observation that how we see ourselves can differ radically from how others see us or even how we think others see us. This idea is most obviously represented in the film by the violent death of Pierre and the revelation contained in Louis' secret diary, but unfortunately both events seem entirely disconnected from what has otherwise been revealed to the audience of Pierre and Louis' respective relationships with Nora. This seems a cheat on Desplechin's part, as if he is thrusting the idea upon us in unmediated form rather than illustrating it more subtly in the natural course of the narrative. One or two darkly surreal touches imply the presence of an alternative but largely unconscious world of persons stripped frighteningly bare, but again these are felt more as pretentious intrusions of film-making technique rather than eruptions from a deeper reservoir of truth inherent in the story. In fact, for all its heavy-handed hints at depth, the characters are curiously undeveloped and unnuanced, as if they function more as ciphers for their creator's many ideas about people rather than as real people in their own right. Much of the detail of their lives seems arbitrarily applied rather than organic. For example, Ismael, as we are constantly reminded, is a viola player, but more than two hours pass before we actually see or hear him play, and the effect of his chosen instrument or profession upon his personality is never elaborated. Hence, he may just as well be a marine biologist or a trapeze artist. Amalric brings a certain manic charm to the unhinged but ultimately sane Ismael, but I found Devos cloying and monotone (which may be intentional, however) as the elusive Nora. Meanwhile Jean-Paul Roussillon as Ismael's father, Elsa Wolliaston as his psychoanalyst and Magalie Woch as the psychically wounded but defiant Sinologist he befriends in hospital make the biggest impact amongst the supporting actors. Catherine Deneuve's in it, too, though her role is little more than a self-referential cameo.Ultimately, "Rois et Reine" is very much an acquired taste. Should it fail to push your buttons, it's very likely that Desplechin's undisciplined and florid approach will frustrate and exasperate even as you somehow keep watching.


Grand Canyon falls under a very scarce category: it is a very clever film, with very clever dialogs and food for thought everywhere from start to end. I have the impression that it never made it to it's deserved ranking (and never will), because of it's simplicity. This kind of flick needs sensitive watchers. Pity thought that IMDb makes me write ten lines, because this is in no way necessary in this particular case. Anyway in order to fulfill this request, I will tell you that the weak point of the film if any is in the acting: not that it is bad but it could have been done much better. Exception made for Kevin Kline who was perfect. Go ahead and watch it.


I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.


The premise for this movie is simple and so is the script: an elderly Muslim gets his teenage son to drive him in his similarly elderly station wagon from France to the haj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, so that he can fulfill his holy Muslim obligation before he dies. The father is clearly devoutly religious, but the son is unimpressed; he accepts out of obligation to his father rather than to religion, he'd rather be with his (non-Muslim) girlfriend. The father is stubborn in a lot of things which the son doesn't understand and the petulance between them is the device that maintains the drama, although it is often rather irksome. However, like any good road movie there are oddball characters encountered along the way; for example a woman on a backroad in Croatia who upon being asked for directions to Belgrade simply gets in the backseat and points with her hand uttering one word which they assume to be a place but can't find it on the map. In Bulgaria another man they ask directions of confirms he can speak French but then provides an extensive commentary in Bulgarian. There is also occasional humor - in one country the son tires of eating egg sandwiches and wants meat - they are given a goat, but unfortunately (perhaps fortunately for the viewer) it runs away before the father can perform the Muslim slaughterman ritual. They eventually make it to Mecca - the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican but on a much grander scale. For westerners it is all bizarre but fascinating. The movie isn't sophisticated but is charming in its own way, a kind of National Geographic with soul.


while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!


This isn't the best Bigfoot ever made, but by the recent standards of Nature gone awry movies, mostly showing on the Sci-Fi channel, this is quality stuff. It has some action, some humor, decent F/X and Bigfoot. CG is used, but so are some practical F/X, which I like.Overall this movie is worth a watch if you are a fan of B horror/sci-fi and need a fix. It's better than the movie Sasquatch and not a sequel to it, so don't be fooled.The acting is better than you may expect to find in a movie like this and the directing is more than adequate. Expect a bit of a lul as the characters are "developed", but know that things will pick up. If you are watching a DVD you may want to skip a chapter or two.


I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.


Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast.


In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other "Warren Bank" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit "Emma" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, "Reducing" and "Politics" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. "Prosperity" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped
 apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster


Brokedown Palace is the story of two best friends, Alice and Darlene, who go on a spontaneous trip to Thailand and wind up in prison after being caught with planted drugs in their luggage. In this way, the movie had the potential to turn into a serious and moving film, such as "Return to Paradise", but instead, the movie chose to focus little on the girls' situation and more on their friendship.Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both turn in excellent performances, and the movie is much more about the interplay between them - the suspicion, the jealousy, the questioning and testing of their friendship and ultimately the sacrifices made in the name of friendship. This movie chooses not to delve too deeply into politics or even into the harshness of prison life (which is a bit glossed over), and focuses more on these friendship issues.There were some plot holes here, and some parts that just didn't seem believable or realistic. We didn't feel the real fear or hopelessness of their situation as well as we might have. And we get very little feeling of life outside the prison walls, with Bill Pullman playing the supposedly sleazy lawyer who actually turns out to have a heart of gold. In short, this should, by all rights, have been a much darker movie than it was.But overall, I enjoyed it. The acting was good, the soundtrack was perfect, and the storyline had enough twists and turns to stay interesting. Worth seeing.


"The Plainsman" represents the directorial prowess of Cecil B. DeMille at its most inaccurate and un-factual. It sets up parallel plots for no less stellar an entourage than Wild Bill Hickok (Gary Cooper), Buffalo Bill Cody (James Ellison), Calamity Jane (Jean Arthur), George Armstrong Custer and Abraham Lincoln to interact, even though in reality Lincoln was already dead at the time the story takes place. Every once in a while DeMille floats dangerously close toward the truth, but just as easily veers away from it into unabashed spectacle and showmanship. The film is an attempt to buttress Custer's last stand with a heap of fiction that is only loosely based on the lives of people, who were already the product of manufactured stuffs and legends. Truly, this is the world according to DeMille - a zeitgeist in the annals of entertainment, but a pretty campy relic by today's standards.TRANSFER: Considering the vintage of the film, this is a moderately appealing transfer, with often clean whites and extremely solid blacks. There's a considerable amount of film grain in some scenes and an absence of it at other moments. All in all, the image quality is therefore somewhat inconsistent, but it is never all bad or all good  just a bit better than middle of the road. Age related artifacts are kept to a minimum and digital anomalies do not distract. The audio is mono but nicely balanced.EXTRAS: Forget it. It's Universal! BOTTOM LINE: As pseudo-history painted on celluloid, this western is compelling and fun. Just take its characters and story with a grain of salt  in some cases  a whole box seems more appropriate!


The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.


This Lifetime style movie takes the middle aged divorcee victim who then finally fights back genre to new depths of cartoon-like absurdity.Here the 40 something stay-at-home ex-wife of a successful lawyer protagonist (daughter away at college) is starting a new life after her divorce, helped by a female college friend in opening a new dress shop as a sort of franchise expansion deal. She has even started up a friendship with her attractive, slightly younger perhaps, landscape architect / gardener (who's black). But then horror of middle-aged women's horrors, ANOTHER 20 something female she took on as a tenant to let a room to, starts 'taking over" her life.What this new younger woman threat really does is mildly flirt with the gardener, and offer him a glass of wine that * gasp * really belonged to the divorcee!! She runs up the utility bills by not turning down the thermostat!! And backed up the toilet! And leaves old food gone bad in the refrigerator! And hangs her pieces of (African) artwork in the living room!! And so on. Well she may have killed the cat as well. Yeah, ok, the extent to which this one does these things is bad enough, but its more than a little ridiculous, especially as it turns into a campaign. The character reality is that any tiny part of this would drive this particular prissy woman insane. (So why did she rent the room -- and to horror of horrors, a much younger woman?)Supposedly this increasingly arrogant (natch) younger woman has a mania for seizing control. And our brave 40 something must learn to fight back against this evil (and erotically hot looking, of course) 20 something. But there's this problem. Anytime the 20 something starts to maybe get into trouble she uses her POWER -- and just flirts or has sex with some guy, and escapes the consequences. (Well, there actually is something to that capability of good looking 20 somethings. It just isn't * generally * used in quite this sort of way.)The premise is moved along by the device of the 20 something conning the divorcee into formalizing their room rental deal with a written lease produced by her. Of course the 40 something doesn't know about these things, and the 20 something has had help. The lease actually gives the younger woman equal right to the whole house during the rental period, with utilities thrown in at the fixed price. Even though an eviction proceeding is soon pending, the 20 something soon gets a temporary restraining order against the older woman, supposedly because she has been threatening the 20 something. You know, the judge is sympathetic to all the woe-is-me of the sexy sweet young thing. Finally the 40 something's "heroic" battle back for THE HOUSE then begins. Woopie!!The only realistic or perceptive thing in this movie is how horrificly easy TRO's (or orders of protection) are for women to get on nothing more than her unsubstantiated say so -- although they are generally only this easy against men. They are sometimes just as unjustified and just as motivated to seize control of a home as it is here. Indeed, girlfriends who have moved in with their boyfriends can often get them evicted from their own homes or condos on the basis of no proof whatsoever, but only an unsubstantiated claim of threats, and sometimes without even hearing his side. Even when there is a hearing, it is routinely impossible to rebut claims of threats (to prove a negative), when the burden of proof is effectively on the accused, rather than the accuser. (This is one of the only areas of American law where that is true -- and it's a signal outrage of feminist overreaching, and the failure of any organized group to resist the steamroller.) Of course that's not likely to be the subject of any Lifetime movie in this lifetime.The absurd basic premise of this movie relies upon the explanation that the 20 something is psychotic, and isn't taking her medicine. Even so it makes no sense. She isn't after the successful lawyer ex-husband, though she does con his help (to the ex wife's fury) in her quest. She's after THE HOUSE (technically, to drive the divorcee out of it during the period of the lease). This second younger woman is after ALL THAT'S LEFT after the divorce, after affairs with other 20 somethings STOLE her husband!! (The ex-husband seems unattached and basically solicitous after his fling -- doesn't matter, he still strayed!!!)The protagonist is good enough looking for her age. But her outlook, attitude and focus is so small minded, frumpy and utterly without imagination or life force that it's impossible to care about her. Well, a core group of Lifetime fans care, I guess, judging by the average score the small number of raters gave it. (I kept watching it only because it was so extremely bad and cartoonish that it had a camp appeal. I couldn't resist seeing just how far they'd take it.)** Spoiler ** (if such a thing is possible with this flick).Well, here's a clue. The movie ends with the 20 something getting bailed out of jail by promising to "listen to" her 20 something male co-worker and sometimes lover, and "do whatever he says" and "let him take care of her" (he means get her to keep taking her medicine) -- and then tricking him and returning to THE HOUSE. There she climbs the stairs with a knife, demonicly stalking her nemesis 40 something, who is taking a bath by candlelight, secure in the thought that the younger woman is out of her life. There's a struggle -- and the 40 something mom wins -- by sticking the 20 something with a hypodermic needle full of anti-psychotic medicine she had found. She then begins stroking her, mom like, and the two women have a bonding, female solidarity moment!!! How sweet.


I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator.


This movie is perfect for all the romantics in the world. John Ritter has never been better and has the best line in the movie! "Sam" hits close to home, is lovely to look at and so much fun to play along with. Ben Gazzara was an excellent cast and easy to fall in love with. I'm sure I've met Arthur in my travels somewhere. All around, an excellent choice to pick up any evening.!:-)


I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.


Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.Well, let's start with the good news first:THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.


By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen. First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story. Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused! The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.


A long-defunct prison, shut down for over 20 years, is re-opened and Ethan Sharpe (the late, great character actor Lane Smith), once a guard there, is put in place as warden. As the prisoners are put to work fixing the place up, they're instructed to break into the old execution room. This unleashes a fierce spirit that wreaks merciless havoc upon both guards and prisoners; cool-as-can-be low-key prisoner Burke (Viggo Mortensen, showing real poise in an early role) is thrust into the role of hero.I know it's a no-brainer to praise the film for its atmosphere (it was shot in an actual abandoned penitentiary near Rawlins, Wyoming), but it elevates this horror film to a higher level. It's got a great sense of foreboding, established right at the outset. Director Renny Harlin made his fourth directorial effort here; it got him the "Nightmare on Elm Street 4" directing gig and effectively began an impressive career in mainstream action movies, thrillers, and horror films.It may have stock characters, but it's got a capable cast bringing them to life: Chelsea Field as the young woman vying for prison reform, Lincoln Kilpatrick as weary veteran convict Cresus, Tom Everett as restless con Rabbitt, Ivan Kane as the outgoing Lasagna, Tommy "Tiny" Lister as soft-spoken giant Tiny, and Arlen Dean Snyder as Captain Horton. It's also worth noting as an early acting credit for Kane Hodder (as the vengeful spirit) that helped *him* land the gig of playing Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" series.Decent special effects, moody lighting courtesy of prolific genre cinematographer Mac Ahlberg, spooky music by Richard Band and Christopher Stone, great visuals, the incredibly gloomy location, and an overall flashy and intense presentation help to make it quite entertaining. It's nasty, gruesome, and good fun for a horror fan.8/10


This great movie has failed to register a higher rating than 5!Why not!It is a great portrayal of the life of Christ without the ruthless sensationalism of The Passion of The Christ.Johnny Cash did great things for God which amazingly are shunned and neglected in areas where they should matter most,like our churches.The film itself took less than a month to film as Johnny felt the strong presence of God guiding him through it.Great credit to everyone involved in this overwhelmingly sincere movie which will always be cherished by its fans.At least the Billy Graham crusade rated it highly enough to use it as a prime source of education for new Christians.Thanks Fox for producing it.As Walk the Line proved that it was freakish that this man survived yet alone produced such an underrated masterpiece.Movies are not canonized through popular vote as this production proves! In summary I believe that this film is one of the worlds great documentaries as it is forthright, honestly portrayed and a great witness to the Christian faith!


This movie was just as good as some of the other westerns made by Anthony Mann and James Stewart like Winchester '73 and The Naked Spur, and much better than Thunder Bay and Bend Of The River. This film starts out like a run of the mill western but gets more complex as it goes along. It starts out with Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan arriving in Seattle and Stewart is charged with murder. He is found innocent but is cattle is stolen by a corrupt judge. Stewart then agrees to lead something but i forget what it is but Stewart only cares about getting his cattle back. As the movie goes along it's like Stewart only cares about himself just like his character in the Naked Spur. It gets much better at the halfway point after they arrive in Alaska. This is one of Stewart's better westerns.


Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour! The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating.


Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap.


This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.


You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"
 During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts
" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people  preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.


- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity.


A Bug's Life is a very good animated feature. This movie is for younger children, but it is also a great movie for people my age. The story is about an ant named Flik. He brought havoc onto his colony when he destroyed the food that were for the superior grasshoppers. He gets banished and he must find bigger bugs to fix the mess. This movie is a classic because it is a good movie and it is a Pixar movie. The animation is brilliant especially for the late 90's. The story is good, but a little more detail would be suffice. The voice acting is good as with most animation movies. The music is nice to listen to. Nothing special, but it earned an nomination for one of the music categories. Overall, this movie struck me as awestruck. This is a good movie for all families. I rate this movie 10/10.


This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning.


I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.


I actually found this movie 'interesting'; finally one worth my time to watch and rent. It is true... some scenes were over the top on emotionalism, shouting, etc., but what movie doesn't stress its agenda, genre or 'ax to grind'? Almost None! What surprised me is that I read a review elsewhere done by a S.Fran reviewer on another review site, but found his negative review instead a more accurate description of his "own" review of the movie; not of the movie at all. Anyone that watches this movie will realize that it is great to recommend to family and friends; no car chases, Yea!! Being "in" an Italian family myself, I can fully relate to the environment portrayed on the screen. The movie has its tear jerking parts as well. It is what real life can be in such an environment. Nice movie.


'Presque Rien' is a beautifully observed portrait of the experiences of a young French homosexual. Eschewing both stereotypes and preaching, it's a wonderfully naturalistic film, superbly acted, shot with a feel for the seaside town where the action takes place, never melodramatic but often painfully real. If anything it's almost too realistic, as there's little in the way of conventional plot, just scenes from a life. But the absence of conventional dramatic tension counts for less than it might in a world so subtly drawn. 'Presque Rien' might not be the most exciting film ever made; but its simple humanism serves it well compared with the pre-conceived celebratory or bigoted viewpoints that often mar treatments of this theme. Worth a watch.


What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.


When I started watching "Fay Grim", I had no idea that it was a sequel to "Henry Fool". Now, the latter was not a movie that I envisioned as having a sequel. But one has arrived, and it's quite good. I assume that you've seen the original, so I won't explain it. This one starts with Fay (Parker Posey) living with her son whom she had with deadbeat Henry (Thomas Jay Ryan). Simon (James Urbaniak) is still in jail. One day, the son gets expelled for bringing a pornographic toy to school. But this is no ordinary toy. It holds a secret that explains much of what happened in the first movie. And this secret delves deeper into geopolitics than "Syriana".I must say that I'm quite impressed with what Hal Hartley has accomplished here. Maybe this one doesn't quite reach the original's quality, but it certainly takes a good look at what's going on in the world. And the end leaves open the possibility for another sequel.Also starring Jeff Goldblum.


"It's not like that big mechanical toy", says a character early on, commenting on "Jaws". Well, "Blood Surf" would only wish to have a beast as convincing as the shark of the "Jaws" series. In other words, the digital special effects of this movie are TERRIBLE. Acting and directing are not much better, either; they seem more suited to a deodorant or a bubble-gum commercial than to a horror movie. The attitude of the people who worked on this film shows contempt not only for the genre, but for the audience too. Saying you "liked" this film only encourages filmmakers to offer us more of this crap, further destroying the poor horror genre. (*1/2)


This particular episode of Smallville is probably the best episode to air since reunion. This is for many reasons. For example, it takes the series back to some of it's roots. It welcomes back Lionel from a supposedly long absence, with the Luthorcorp plaza office in Metropolis. This room hasn't been in smallville for a very long time, and seeing it again brings back many memories from the smallville's past. Not to mention, Lionels conversations with Lex are always admirable.Another pleasant return is, well uv guessed it, is Bart Allen(aka Impulse), AC(aka Aquaman) and Victor Stone(aka Cyborg). Not only does Steven Deknight reunite the former justice leaguers, he blends them in with the Smallville formula in such a unique way, that it almost feels like it is a feature length movie.From there you get the basic story, Green Arrow forms the league, attempts to blow up 33.1, Bart gets captured, Clark saves him, and the facility is blown to kingdom com. All is good and graceful, with a good mix of stealth, action, pace and suspense. Oh, and Cyborg has some cool new upgrades true to the justice league character :).The music is probably what makes this episode work so well. If you remember correctly, the first episode Steven Deknight directed was Agless from Season 4. This was a mediocre episode, but something felt out of place. maybe it was the music, or the acting, or the fact clark sais at the end "we didn't find you, you found us", kind of made people lose faith in the formula. But thankfully Steve Deknight redeemed himself in this Justice episode.I had a few quivvles about Justice that made it fall short of the full 10. First of all, the far too cheesy exit of the justice league from the Ridge facility expolsion. I mean it would have been soo much cooler if say Green Arrow and Cyborg took off on Oliver's bike (rememeber from the arrow episode). Clark and Impulse should have obviously ran, and aquaman should have swam via another route. But that was soo incredibly cheesy, it nocked off 2 points from the full 10.Secondly, another cheesy moment, not as bad as the first, but when Green Arrow sais "let's go save the world". That made me cringe. All in all, judging by the acting performances, music, direction and production values, the pros do outweigh the cons, and this is still one of the best episodes in smallville history, and maybe the 2nd best episode in season 6.7 Out of 10...


This wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee!


Well well well. As good as John Carpenter's season 1 outing in "Masters of Horror" was, this is the complete opposite. He certainly proved he was still a master of horror with "Cigarette Burns" but "Pro-Life" is perhaps the worst I have seen from him.It's stupid, totally devoid of creepy atmosphere and tension and it overstays it's welcome, despite the less-than-an-hour running time. The script is nonsense, the characters are irritable and un-appealing and the conclusion is beyond absurd.And for those suckers who actually bought the DVD (one of them being me); did you see how Carpenter describes the film? He's actually proud of it and he talks about it as his best work for a long time, and he praises the script. And in the commentary track, where he notices an obvious screw up that made it to the final cut, he just says he didn't feel it essential to rectify the mistake and he just let it be there. I fear the old master has completely lost his touch. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong.I want to leave on a positive note and mention that the creature effects are awesome, though. Technically speaking, this film is top notch, with effective lighting schemes and make up effects.