I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make. She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes. The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense. Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.


I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes.


This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment."Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.


...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.


John Water's ("Pink Flamingos"...) "Pecker" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu)


Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.It IS jazz.The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.What shadows and light - what music - what a hat!


This should be re-titled "The Curious Case Of The Unscrupulous Filmmakers Who Misrepresented A Non-horror Snorer As A Shock Film." It's one long, boring tale of a fraternity hazing, a gag so transparent that even Flounder from Delta House could see through it. Jeff East, an actor in the dues-paying stage, can be forgiven for taking any work he could get. The same can't be said for Charles Martin Smith, who formerly acted for such cinematic heavyweights as George Lucas and Sam Peckinpah. Once available on tape but, thankfully, not out on DVD. Misrepresented garbage like this belongs in a landfill and nowhere else.


The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.


as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.


I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of "A Good Baby."Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly.


I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.


Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10


Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.


One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known.


This James bond game is the best bond game i have played in my life it is my favorite James bond game so far because: The missions in this game are really fun they can be really hard that makes it more fun to play the missions have lots of actions the weapons you use are really good. The cars in this game are awesome the car missions have lots of action and are really fun to play. The voice over actors are really good and it is cool that Sean Connery does the voice for James bond also the way bond looks is really cool because it looks just like Sean Connery when he played James bond in the movies and the other character look pretty much the same as the look in the movie. The graphics a pretty good in this James bond game. Also the game follows the movie pretty much but not all the but most of the time it does which is cool.overall score ********** out of **********


This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.


In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.Really good memories are connected with Camouflage.


Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.


Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.


Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.


I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't


LOC could have been a very well made movie on how the Kargil war was fought; it had the locations, the budget, and the skill to have been India's "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down". Instead it come across as a bloated, 4 hour bore of trying to meld the war move with the masala movie. Even the war scenes were terribly executed, using the same hill in all their battle scenes, and spending unnecessary time on casual talk. Instead of trying to appeal to the indian public, a better movie would have been a to-the-book account of what happened at Kargil (like "Black Hawk Down") or even spending time on the militant point of view (like "Tora, Tora, Tora"). Even better, it could have used a competent director like Ram Gopal Verma to write, direct and edit the film. Until then, I'd like to see some one re-edit this film, with only the pertinent portions included; it would make the movie more watchable.


A documentary about two rocks bands, spanning a number of years. Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. What makes it special is the examination of the complex contrasting personalities and the ironies of success and failure.Anton Newcombe, the main man of Brian Jonestown Massacre, is widely recognised as a musical genius not only by his colleagues, his friends and rivals the Dandy Warhols, but also by record producers and most people who have worked with him. Sadly he and his band members are also incapable of integrating with the real world. Newcombe picks fights with band members on stage or with members of the audience (getting arrested at one point for literally kicking in the head of a fan). Newcombe knows no limits  he plays between 40 and 100 different instruments, writes and produces all BJM's music, can produce enough songs to fill a whole album in a single day, has a prophet-like obsessiveness with his own musical genius, but is also a heavy drugs user, flies into rages at the slightest compromise of his own artistic integrity, orders his band members about as if they are lower forms of life, and can blow deals as fast as he makes them. BJM go through a large number of record labels in fast succession  they sign them up as soon as they realise Newcombe's talents and let them go as soon as they realise he is totally uncontrollable.The Warhols acknowledge their debt to Newcombe's creativity and don't even put themselves in the same exalted sphere of greatness  but the Warhols have something that BJM don't  the ability to integrate their talents with common sense, the real world, and their market  as a mixing pot of talent (even if much of it is distilled from guru Newcombe) and accessibility, they are the very definition of 'cool.' DiG! follows the parallel careers of the two bands with increasing poignancy. At one point, Newcombe pulls stunts designed to generate publicity by sending apparent death threats and hate messages to the Warhols (in a box containing live ammunition and insults like a bar of soap 'to clean up their act')  only he forgets to tell them it's a stunt and they get so paranoid they take out a restraining order against Newcombe. By the time the Dandy Warhols take off in Europe with hits like 'Every Day Should Be A Holiday' and 'Bohemian Like You', Newcombe is becoming increasingly isolated. BJM are stopped and the band breaks up when they are arrested for possession of marijuana  the Warhols get busted for drugs around the same time, let off with a warning, and even allowed to keep the grass.The wider appeal of DiG! is that the lessons of genius versus accessibility go way beyond two bands or even rock music. The downside is that it is still a documentary, however intimate, and it will mostly only appeal to dedicated film fans or people who are already interested in the music of one or both of the featured bands. Newcombe may well be a largely unrecognised genius, and there are feint glimpses of this in the film, but to the unattuned ear there is little more than the assertions of the people interviewed to attest to this. In the words of one of the band members: "In every spiritual tradition, you burn in hell for pretending to be God and not being able to back it up." Newcombe isn't pretending  but numerically there are maybe still insufficient people to appreciate him in his own lifetime, and DiG! has an uphill struggle to rectify the balance in favour of a tortured but largely unrecognised genius.


Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.


The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.


This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10.


Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows. Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.


I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes.


The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's "Dirty Harry" meets "M". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the "in-between" steps.Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste.


Well, what can I say."What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.I want 2 hours of my life back.Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics."What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.


A stupid rich guy circa about 1800 wants to visit a nearby mental asylum to see how a famous doctor cares for his patients. Despite an initially hostile response, he is soon cordially invited in and given a tour by the good doctor. And, as the doctor shows him about, he talks and talks and talks!!! And as he talks, loonies run amok here and there doing nothing especially productive. While there is SOME action here and there (and some of it quite disturbing), it's amazing how dull and cerebral the whole thing is--lacking life and energy, which is odd for a horror flick. Even a guy who thinks he's a chicken and dresses like one becomes rather tiresome. The further this tour takes the guest, the more disturbing it becomes until ultimately you realize that the inmates have taken over the hospital and are torturing their keepers. Yet again, despite this twist, the film is amazingly lifeless in many places--particularly when it moves very slowly as a bizarre ceremony is taking place or people are just wandering about the set. Only when the workers from the asylum found in a prison cell, starving, does the film have any real impact. Considering this plot, it sure is hard to imagine making it boring, but the people who made this cheap exploitational film have! Now with the same plot and competent writing, acting and direction, this COULD have been an interesting and worthwhile film.You know, now that I think about it, this was the plot of one of the episodes of the original "Star Trek" TV show! You know, the one with "Lord Garth--Master of the Universe" and Kirk and Spock are held prisoner by this madman and his crazed followers.A final note: The film has quite a bit of nudity here and there and includes a rape scene, so be forewarned--it's not for kids. In fact, considering how worthless the film is, it isn't for anyone! However, with the version included in the "50 Movie Pack--Chilling Classics", the print is so incredibly bad that it's hard to see all this flesh due to the print being so very dark.


The Night Listener is probably not one of William's best roles, but he makes a very interesting character in a somewhat odd but very different movie. I can guarantee you that you have never seen this kind of movie before. Some people maybe won't like the slow pacing of this movie, but I think it's the great plus of the movie. It is definitely one of the top movies that have come out the year 2006. It has a intriguing performance in a movie with a great content, dramatic feeling. This is no americanized movie. Neither is it a predictable movie. You just feel that it is a movie that has secrets which you have a hard time to determine what the outcome of it may be. This is no excellent movie that has everything, but hell, it's a damn good and very original movie.


I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video. There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.


Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME!


Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him. What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys.


One of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this?


this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!!


Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended!


The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average. Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast.


It looks to me as if the creators of "The Class Of Nuke 'Em High" wanted it to become a "cult" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey.


For those deciding whether or not to watch this movie and are reading these comments for insight, I first offer these four words: Don't waste your time! "Chungking Express" was shoddily filmed, slapped together quickly and seems as though it were conceived in its entirety by someone standing in line at a Hong Kong Burger King. I can't remember ever watching a film with an assortment of such one-dimensional characters trying to work their way through a script this mundane! It's an absurd effort with philosophically ridiculous dialog (a man wanders into his flooded apartment and offers the stunning revelation that "tears can be dried with a tissue, but water takes time to mop up"). The same character is also seen carrying on a deep, meaningful rapport with his towels, soap, stuffed animals, dirty laundry, etc. The shaky, wandering, hand-held camera-work was another annoying feature I could have done without. And if that isn't enough to make you puke in your popcorn, we hear the old 60's ode "California Dreaming" by the Mamas and Papas blaring over the soundtrack over and over again during a particularly lengthy sequence.Quentin Tarantino was responsible for bringing this loser to America through his Rolling Thunder Productions company, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a man with his talent would bother. He was known to have remarked, "I'm happy to love a movie this much." A lot of us, though, hope he will concentrate on making his audiences happy with more worthwhile discoveries in the future.


Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.


Sandwiched in between San Francisco and Captains Courageous two of Spencer Tracy's greatest parts is this very curious film about war and the effects it has on some people. They Gave Him A Gun stars Spencer Tracy and Franchot Tone in the only film they ever made together and Gladys George as the woman who loves them both.Tracy and Tone are a couple of World War I draftees, Tone is a weak character who almost goes over the hill in boot camp, but Tracy stops him. Tracy is still playing the lovable blowhard, younger Wallace Beery type that MGM envisioned for him when they signed him away from Fox. Over at the front Tone gets an opportunity and takes it when during a fight he manages to get to a church tower that peers down on a German machine gun nest. He's learned to shoot by now and he does a Sergeant York. But Alvin C. York was never changed by the war the way Tone has.Wounded in the fight Tone convalesces at a hospital with Gladys George looking out for him. Tracy goes AWOL himself to visit his pal and he and George get something going. Later on when Tracy is reported missing in action, Tone and George marry. Tracy's brokenhearted when he comes back and learns of the marriage, but takes sit in stride. The rest of the film is dealing with Tone applying the the wartime skills he's learned to the gangster trade. He's a hit-man now and George doesn't really know what he does for a living. I think you can figure the rest out.The part of the film that gave me some trouble is that I can't believe Gladys George couldn't figure it out. She's a street smart girl, her part is very much like the one she played in The Roaring Twenties opposite James Cagney.Speaking of The Roaring Twenties, Humphrey Bogart's character development there is similar to Tone's although he was not the central character of the movie. In fact there are elements of They Gave Him A Gun that are to be found in Taxi Driver and in Clint Eastwood's classic, The Unforgiven. The World War I battle sequences are very well staged by director Woody Van Dyke. For some reason Leonard Maltin panned this film, I think it's a lot better than he gave it credit.


Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended.


But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!


Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In "Scoop", Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of "Scoop", seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity."Scoop" is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen.


World At War is perhaps the greatest documentary series of all time. The historical research is virtually flawless. Even after a quarter century, it is the most accurate and definitive documentary about WW2. An invaluable historical work that includes interviews with some of the most important and fascinating figures from the war. I highly recommend it as a learning experience.


This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed!


An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)


Intelligent, wry, and thrilling, "The Invisible Man" stood out in 2000 among Sci-Fi's usual lineup, balancing out "Farscape"'s fantastical art direction and sometimes melodramatic script with gritty, cynical plots and modern noir dialogue. The show sat between "Law and Order" and "Doctor Who" on the believability meter, but there was no denying the fact that "I-Man"'s characters went beyond caricature. Even characters that verged on predictability like the Keeper, the Official, and Eberts were given reprieves from the formulaic. Paul Ben-Victor and Vincent Ventresca had a chemistry that evolved and shifted elegantly, made even more remarkable by the revolving door team of writers and directors. The effects are never allowed to overwhelm the plot, and the science only sometimes verged on the totally unbelievable. The show's low points are still entertaining, and I've never seen such taut pilot episodes. Matt Greenberg and Sci-Fi should be commended, and fans have the right to demand a comprehensive DVD edition of the show. Every time I come across a marathon of "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" on Sci-Fi, I roll my eyes and sigh, mourning the excitement and possibility of science fiction television that "Invisible Man" and its ilk represented.


If this movie proves only one thing, it's that Keaton is, was and always will be a comic at heart, even when dodging bullets, heading for the electric chair and getting at the wrong end of an information line in prison.But "Johnny Dangerously" goes on to prove even more. In the '80s, the ZAZ boys (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker) were the pinnacle in the world of genre spoofs. But there were several pretenders to the throne. This time, Amy ("Fast Times at Ridgement High") Heckerling tries her hand, with an amazing amount of television writers behind the script (go and check). This slap-happy slapstick spoof of the 1930's cops-and-"gag"sters movies throws just about every cliche for a loop and even adds a few cliches that didn't exist way back when.And not only is the ever-dependable Keaton on hand as the Johnny of the title, but so are such funny guys and dolls as Piscopo, Henner, Stapleton, Boyle, Dunne, DeVito, Walston and just about every other actor in Hollywood that happened to walk into the immediate vicinity. You'd be surprised by how many faces you'll recognize. I know I was.And the jokes? Well, when they start out, they come at you fast and furious, like a machine gun. There are too many to count in the beginning, topped off with a crazy theme song by Weird Al Yankovic. But you have to watch for when they reload. And they have to reload a little too often. Everyone tries, they seem to be having fun and I was laughing a good amount of the time. In the end, though, there was plenty of time to think about how certain scenes could have been funnier - not usually the best thing to think about after watching a comedy.But for a slow night when there's nothing good on TV, pop in "Johnny" and be ready for some "Dangerously" serious laughter.Eight stars. Check out "Johnny Dangerously"... don't be a "bastidge".


This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.


She's not Michael JordanThink of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating.


Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.***spoiler/question: * *At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?


"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.


Based on a true story of how a man ahead of his time - the great 19th century American poet and humanist Walt Whitman - made a significant contribution to how western medicine treats people with psychological problems.Interested in the treatment of people with psychological problems, he began to associate with psychiatric workers and patients. After seeing the psychological methods of the time (inhumane and ignorantly cruel methods), Walt rejected those methods, and treated patients with compassion and dignity, encouraging other people to do the same> The story of Walt's interactions with psychiatric workers, patients and townsfolk is full of drama, good humor and wisdom. : )


As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.Remember the "strings" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing "Suspicious Minds". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places.


talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was...


This was the second entry in the regular Columbo series, and it holds up well today. As I am able to look at it closely now on DVD and see how it is constructed, I am very impressed with the direction of Bernard L. Kowalski (who directed the fine MACHO CALLAHAN as well as countless TV episodes)--watch how the post-murder actions of the killer are shown on a split-screen effect on his two eyeglasses, watch how the murder itself is shown in montage fashion, watch the point-of-view shot from the perspective of the corpse. Also, the wild but impressive avant-garde musical score from noted jazzman Gil Melle was incredible and helped so much to create atmosphere. And the supporting performance of Brett Halsey as the golf pro was wonderful--such subtlety and complexity in a role that nine out of ten times would be a one-dimensional cutout. The "formula" had not yet been set when this episode was filmed, so there are still some surprises in Columbo's methods. Of course, Falk, Robert Culp, and Ray Milland are the highest-quality actors and it's a pleasure to see them work--all men are familiar from many other roles yet lose themselves in their characters here. In all, this entry in the Columbo series--and MANY of the others--are as well-crafted as a very good feature film.


Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the moviePS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter


This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.


If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil. The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.


I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ?? **MAY BE SPOILER** An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)


The main problem of the first "Vampires" movie is that none of the characters were sympathetic. Carpenter learned from his mistake and this time used a likable vampire hunter and a charismatic vampire. The female vampire Una certainly is the coolest vampire since Blade's Deacon Frost. Unfortunately while there are some good concepts like a cool slow motion restaurant scene (why didn't Carpenter use more of this??) this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been. I expected to see strong vampires in action and at least one longer lasting nicely choreographed fight sequence (for example inside a city) and was left somewhat disappointed. While "Los Muertos" proceeds at a faster pace than its predecessor, it still drags a little in some parts (though nowhere near as bad as "Vampires" did). Much like "Vampires" however this movie's climax near the end is not very intense.Most of the above may sound like "Los Muertos" is a bad movie but it definitely isn't. It is generally enjoyable and ranks among the better entries to the genre. It is neither an unoriginal Dracula remake (like almost every other vampire movie out there) nor is it an unintelligent action spectacle like Blade II. It simply could have used a bit more excitement.I'd really like to see a third installment made by Carpenter but it's probably not going to happen.SPOILER WARNING The ending was way too predictable. Una should have gotten away- that would have made the movie quite unusual.


I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame.


Those 2 points are dedicated the reasonable performance from Akshay Kumar. I know Bollywood films do not really strive to be realistic but PLEASE a Walt Disney production is more realistic than this plot. The father is dying and does what any good parent does...kick his son out the son with his PREGNANT wife. A few things that were too hard to swallow- 1. Priyanka 'cool indoor swimming pool in the bedroom' and to go from that to living hungry in her in-laws garden shed???????? 2. Akshay suddenly got the job as a stunt man, gets bitten by rabified dogs, to then just walk off. This film is an INSulT to our intelligence I really cant believe i contributed financially to the 'people' who made this film by taking my family to see it, we left the cinema with a frown, please do not subject yourself to this mess to watching this take my advice and do not waste your 'waqt'.


I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.


This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!


Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with "church going" abusers who use the "n-word" not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's "file" once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those "bright lights" in the darkness of the system.The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem.


Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well.


As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically! Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out. Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.My rating: 5/5


I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.


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


There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.


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


I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.