Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.


Normally I'm quite disposed to like low budget gonzo films, but Darkman III is so appallingly unengaging that I feel nothing but contempt for it.It looks and feels like a TV show, and a particularly shoddy one at that. The sets are sparse, the lighting flat, the score and effects disjointed, and the camerawork is film school 101. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are one dimensional, and the actors are sleepwalking. Most of the cast look like they should be doing soft core porn..... In fact, the only reward that I got from this mess was spotting the startling squint faced Roxann Biggs-Dawson (B'Elanna from Star Trek: Voyager) without her Klingon bumpy head makeup on. Her skin tone is about two shades lighter than it is in Voyager; either she's been bleached down for this role, or blacked up for Voyager. Very strange either way.


Genie (Zoe Trilling) arrives in Egypt to visit her hypocritical, bible-quoting archeologist father (William Finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the Marquis de Sade (Robert Englund). Englund also plays de Sade in flashbacks, ranting in his cell. Genie is led astray by Mohammed (Juliano Merr), who rides around naked on a horse and Sabina (Alona Kamhi), a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking, which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers, a woman simulating oral sex on a snake, an orgy and her father preaching in the background! Meanwhile, black hooded cult members decapitate, gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. When Genie is slipped drugs in her tea, she imagines de Sade hanging from a cross, a gold-painted woman in a leafy g-string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. It's all because she's the reincarnation of de Sade's lost love.This typically sleazy Harry Alan Towers production is redundant, seedy and pretty senseless, but the sets, costumes, cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there's always something going on.Score: 3 out of 10


As others have noted, this should have been an excellent Hammer-style film, and it seems to me that that's how most of the actors were instructed to play it... but the screenplay is so leaden, poorly paced, and filled with a lot of dull soliloquies (poor Timothy Dalton is saddled with most of them) that it's all too overblown and self-important. This is an uncharacteristically weak performance from Dalton, although he quietly nails the climactic scene where Dr. Rock finally realizes what he's done. The only actor who comes off really well is Patrick Stewart who is a most welcome sight. Freddie Francis may have been a great cinematographer, but he was a lousy director.


Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as "The Nazis - A warning From History", "Blitz" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. "Britain At War In Colour", with its companion series "Japan", "Germany" and "America" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative.


The Flock is not really a movie. It's a wannabe movie, with wannabe actors. Not including Richard Gere, he gave an excellent performance, but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character, and the rest of the cast is just acting... the result is pathetic, just like this movie. You see, the idea of acting is to hide the fact that you're acting. What the hell was Claire Dains doing in this one?! She's the most inappropriate actress for this character. In 99.9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place, out of everything!! The only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions, like " do you really think so?? " , and making silly faces. I was embarrassed by her acting, seriously, and I used to like her... She's the romantic movie type, I don't know who picked her among all the actresses out there.... LOL, and seeing Avril Lavigne?! this really made me laugh.. Anyway.. If you want to get the feeling of throwing up, this movie will do the job for you!!! I wish I could vote -5..


> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.


Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.


Oh, this is such a glorious musical. There's a bit of miscasting -- Frank Sinatra is sorely miscast as the Jewish Nathan Detroit, though it only becomes evident on "Sue Me", which is a distinctly Jewish song. Sadly, the filmmakers decided to cut out one of the best songs from the show, "Marry the Man Today", and replaced it with an inferior Sinatra showpiece. With these two flaws in mind, the movie is otherwise magnificent. Jean Simmons shines as Sarah Brown. Marlon Brando can't sing worth beans, but pulls it off anyway. Stubby Kaye wonderfully reprises his Broadway role (it was written for him). Damon Runyon's language and pacing and humor come through quite well. This is on my see-it-every-chance-I-get list.


I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.kamal at his best is the best in tollywood


Two snipers travel deep in the jungles in search for their targets; a slimy South American drug-lord and a prominent general.Moderately successful at building a brooding atmosphere, Sniper is by most accounts a very solid thriller, taking it's time, establishing it's characters and their plight and climaxing in some good action sequences. Director Llosa isn't always successful at maintaining the sombre mood and could have tightened the story somewhat; some detours here don't add up to much. But this film is far better than his Stallone/Stone travesty The Specialist.Billy Zane, usually incredibly tiresome, does surprisingly well as the inexperienced Sniper teamed up with veteran Berenger. As for Berenger this film proved to be his last good big budget Hollywood venture. He can do these kind of roles in his sleep and he's very convincing here, reprising the role twice more in direct to DVD sequels.


I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10.


I really don't want to compare Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to the classic 1962 Cape Fear film, but I can't help it. Not only am I a huge fan of the Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck starred Cape Fear, but when Scorsese includes scenes right out of the previous film (Cady taking the keys out of the ignition, dog dying) and even using Bernard Herrmann's score throughout the entire film, he's not giving me a lot of opportunities to not make a comparison as I can't help but think of the classic Cape Fear nearly every scene. When comparing Scorsese's version of Cape Fear to the classic version, the remake comes out destroyed by the classic; but even when taking the film by itself, it's still bad.Now Scorsese and screenwriter Wesley Strick didn't just remake the 1962 Cape Fear scene for scene, they tried to do things differently. Unfortunately this is one of the film's problems. Gone is the original crazy and animal-like Max Cady who is out for personal revenge, the Max Cady in the 1991 version is a religious fanatic out to "save" Sam Bowden and who is in touch with his feminine side (his words, not mine). Also gone is the stand-up and strong Sam Bowden seen in the classic Cape Fear film, the Sam found in the 1991 remake is very goofy, Magoo, distrustful, and very unlikable. Even Mrs. Bowden is a completely different character - she's crazier than Max Cady is! The overall story has also been changed around - Sam didn't testify against Cady in court to put him in jail like in the classic version, Sam is now Cady's ex-lawyer who Cady suspects of not doing all he could to keep him out of jail and is out to "save" him.The overall story has been changed, and I don't hold too much against it, but the overall script is also weak all around. Other sub-plots have been thrown into the mix that not only distract from the bigger picture, they are also just poorly written. The film also includes a few frankly absurd scenes and is filled with apathetic and even ridiculous lines that you can't take the least bit seriously. These aspects take away from the dangerous and thrilling nature that the film is supposed to have, but they have some help in this department as well.Now the classic version of Cape Fear was extraordinarily filmed with brilliant lighting and a powerfully effective suggestive subtlety combined with a barefaced brutality that delivered thrills when the film called for it and a sense of danger throughout its entirety. However, Scorsese is unable to do any of this in his Cape Fear, giving the film a cookie-cutter early 1990s look, no sense of danger, no suspenseful scenes, and little style (unless you count animating fire and the skyline style). Yeah, there is some gruesome violence and some effort was put in to make this Cape Fear bigger than the original, but it ends up empty and all shock but no awe.If all that wasn't enough, the acting isn't great either. Robert De Niro (being somehow nominated for an Academy Award for his performance) starts off alright as Max Cady, but he gets progressively worse until he begins to get nothing but laughs instead of scares by the end of the film. The opposite thing happens for Jessica Lange and her performance of Mrs. Bowden, going from overacting for most of the film to giving a convincing display of fear and desperation towards the end. As Sam Bowden, Nick Nolte stays the same throughout the whole film: beige. Juliette Lewis (who also reeled in an Academy Award nomination) is decent enough in her role as Danielle Bowden, but she's called upon to play a real stupid character and it's hard to really like what we see on screen from her.This film seems to be often counted as one of the few good remakes, and I can't figure out why. I wanted to like it; I really did - I mean, if there's going to be a remake of Cape Fear I'd rather like that one too - but I just couldn't. Containing nothing to be great on its own and being crushed by the unavoidable comparison to the original Cape Fear, I found Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to be a very bad film indeed. The best things about the film are Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in their supporting roles - go figure.


Two days after seeing this thing, I'm still in agony over HAVING seen it. It's so bad, you have to wonder how anyone could write this tripe, much less allow it to be loose on the general public. Stilted acting, a leading man who looks like he's sleepwalking, and Alison Eastwood embarrassing herself. The action is indicative of low budget movie making, which means it is painfully bad. The plot? Well, if you were 6 years old, then you could have written this movie. Simplistic, idealistic, and just plain lame.


Russell Hopton acted in many films until his death in 1945. He only directed 2 and "Black Gold" was one, (the other was also from 1936). Frankie Darro had a sometimes abrasive screen presence but in this he was playing a good kid. He was obviously quite popular on the "quickie" circuit - he made so many films. In this one he plays the son of an old oil rigger who is convinced that he will strike oil very soon.J.C. Anderson (Berton Churchill) is trying to convince the old man to sell up as he knows there is going to be oil struck at any moment. A geologist, Henry, comes on the scene and helps "Fishtail's" dad. He also convinces "Fishtail" to go to school regularly. Henry has his eye on Cynthia, the pretty teacher. This was Gloria Shea's last film - she had begun her career as Olive Shea in "Glorifying the American Girl" (1929). "Fishtail's" dad is killed when the rig is sabotaged and Henry is determined to bring Anderson and his cronies to justice. When Henry is kidnapped Anderson tries to persuade "Fishtail" to sell his oil lease. It all ends well with oil being struck and "Fishtail" going to Military school.It is okay for a rainy day.


HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get!


Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.


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


This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)


This was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 re-make of Conan Doyle's famous novel 'The Lost World'. And it shows.The film starts promisingly enough, with a ruthless organization intending to exploit the lost world and Challenger et al returning to defend the prehistoric plateau, but then things go downhill. Everybody is stranded on the plateau and we're left with a feeble, boring, over-length rehash of the first film.The dinosaurs (who are hardly ever seen) are just laughable. Are we expected to take that cuddly toy that's supposed to be an ankylosaur seriously? And the tyrannosaur seems rooted to the spot.Do yourself a favor and get hold of the 1925 silent version of the Lost World. Unbelievably in this age of CGI and other advanced effects, the twenties version is the best and will remain so until somebody finally decides to do a decent re-make.


If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.You are better off not seeing it.


I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!


That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.


David Webb Peoples meets Paul Anderson...if it already sounds weird to you, then you are right, because it is.Peoples is known for his scripts with moral implications of what is right and wrong, the value of life, etc... He covered these issues in Bladerunner, Unforgiven, and pretty much in all of his screenplays there is something along those lines.Paul Anderson's first successful movie was a violent thriller. Not surprisingly so have all of his other movies! And here is a violent thriller with moral implications!Peoples' script is quite apparent in the first half of the movie. Soldiers trained from birth, taught to kill, and never had a normal life. They are replaced by better, genetically engineered soldiers and Todd, one of the original soldiers, is left on a planet and left for dead. There he must cope with a group of refugees, some want him to stay others hate him and there is an interesting drama here. BUT THEN......The bullets start to fly as the new soldiers move onto the planet for a military exercise and try to kill all the people. Big, violent, loud action ensues and Peoples' script turns into an Anderson action-fest. It is hard to believe that the script was originally written that way, but the end product is better then I expected. Entertaining, somewhat, though admittedly not very, thought-provoking, and exciting once the action starts. 7/10Rated R: a lot of violence


Really touching story of a recruitment camp in America, where young men are prepared for the Vietnam war. The human study always appealed to me when it comes to war movies, because it translates personal, subjective opinions on war, opposed war action movies where action, and technical data are being analyzed to the prejudice of the human factor. The movie manages to put a new spin on an already ancient subject, and manages to distance itself from usual war movies, especially by focusing on an anti-hero from the view-point of traditional standard. The movie focuses on the tragic character of Bozz, who smartly avoids being sucked in by the dehumanizing war machine, and refuses to give up control over his destiny and fight for something he doesn't believe in, spends his energy in searching ways to avoid being sent overseas, both for himself and comrades and ironically ends up finding his own just reason for finally going to war. Perfect irony.The acting is truly exceptional, and the documentary-style shooting almost makes you feel transposed into the movie. Also the movie will provide food for thought for those exhilarated by the action in usual war movies or war-games enthusiasts, hopefully awakening some minds of a generation which luckily escaped the terror of being drafted.


Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it.


Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.


This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.


I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this.


I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.It will change you if you do.


If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.


It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.


Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.


My favorite quote from Crow was, when the car was going off the cliff, "The movie is so bad, even the car wants to get out of it!"This had to be the funniest movie I have ever seen. It was seriously out there to scare you, which makes it even funnier! If it weren't for Mystery Science Theater I wouldn't be here today! :-P


Above-average film and acting partly spoiled by its completely predictable story line. Even the music is chosen so that the words fit the action every time. A scent of "Pleasantville" camp hangs around this flick. As a period piece, it's more accurate than not. Its depiction of the tragedy of company towns and lack of upward mobility is sketchy but moving. Chris Cooper turns in a first-class performance as Howard's coal-miner daddy.


This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.


Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed  strong praise, but well deserved.


I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.


Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.***SPOILERS FOLLOW****That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.


Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.


This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.


Garde à Vue has to be seen a number of times in order to understand the sub-plots it contains. If you're not used to french wordy films, based upon conversation and battle of wits rather than on action, don't even try to watch it. You'll only obtain boredom to death, and reassured opinion that french movies are not for you.Garde à Vue is a wordy film, essentially based upon dialogs (written by Audiard by the way)and it cruelly cuts the veil of appearances.Why does Maître Martineau (Serrault) prefer to be unduly accused of being a child murderer rather than telling the truth ? Because at the time of the murder he was with a 18 years old girl with which he has a 8-years sexual relation. His wife knows it, she's jealous of it and he prefers to be executed (in 1980 in France, there was still death penalty)rather than unveiling the sole "pure and innocent" aspect of his pitiful life.


I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments....robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.


He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we  the film viewers  perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well
? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.Slavoj iek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by iek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting iek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide
 is iek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, iek's views or iek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (iek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide
 is dominated by his voice  delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being  think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.Most notable are iek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of iek's lecture memorable and  unlike others  difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).The question isn't whether iek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are iek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) iek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing
? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes
? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to iek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when iek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. iek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of iek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films  but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.The ultimate question is: did iek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach iek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer.


This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.


I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain.


Despite the overwhelming cult following for this sad "documentary," I must admit to having cordially loathed the film which struck our party as far more a distressing exploitation piece than usefully informative. That said, after seeing the magnificent stage musical drawn from it, one can appreciate what the film might have been in surer hands. One suspects that those many of us who actively suffered through the film may have had any campy delights its crueler fans enjoyed destroyed by the uncomfortable suspicion that too many of us - or those we know - are only a misstep or two away from the deplorable plight of the two mad women depicted who live in and contribute to a squalor they seem incapable of controlling or escaping.The film leaves the viewer desperately wondering how any person could have slid to this level of degradation and, unlike the musical, offers no cautionary clues or explanations, only a horror show unredeemed by humor or insight. This soul crushing flatness of the film makes the achievement of the stage version (hopefully to be filmed ultimately for cable) all the more remarkable. Act II is faithful in almost every detail to the film under discussion but strangely, setting the sad inmates' plight to music, raises the human tragedy to art. Even more important, this act is preceded by a fine Act I where we meet the women before their decent into mutually enabled madness, and are offered hints how their isolated purgatory came about. In short, everything which the FILM is lacking.To the filmmakers' credit (or their successors), the excellent Criterion DVD release includes out-takes and bonus material that partially redeem the main film - behind the scenes photographs, interviews and commentary - filling in some of the blank spots the original editing consciously decided to omit in its drive for unadulterated horror and depression. They can't make the amateurish film itself satisfying, but they can at least make it a bit more comprehensible. Ultimately though, it is only the remarkable stage piece inspired by and drawn from it by book writer Doug Wright, composer Scott Frankel and lyricist Michael Korie which raises the rating of the original GREY GARDENS above a single (generous) star.


This film is not even worth walking to the movie theatre. No jokes, but stupid and boring laughing on repeated disgusting stuff. The music and the girls are great, unfortunately you have to watch the whole movie to enjoy them. It was weak, very very weak.


This is one of the best bond games i have ever played because: The missions are very very fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be really hard sometimes that makes it even more fun the weapons that you use are really good. The cars in this game are really good the driving missions are fun to do. This James bond game has a good story to it. The voice over actors in this game are really good and it is cool that pierce brosnan is in this game and the way the characters look is really good because they look like what they look like in real life which is really cool. Also the graphics in this game pretty good.Overall score ********* out of **********


So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.Check this one out.


For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this "transformation" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more "silent" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.


Hello everyone, This is my first time posting and I just love the movie No child of mine and I could watch it over and over!! well I taped it a long time ago like a few years ago and I dropped it and broke it and I haven't seen it in a few years!! could any one please tell me when it will come on again!! I would really appreciate it alot!!You can email me if you want to cause that is my favorite movie of all including Empty Cradle to and if anyone knows when that comes on to PLEASE let me know,I would really appreciate it ALOT!!!


******* SPOILER! ********i saw this gr8 film a few years back, its a lovely story about a young fella who wants to drink his mothers milk at the breast but she thinks he is to old for it. he ends up lusting after another ladies breasts and ends up in competition with his brother who fancies her. throw in a jealous husband of this woman who cannot get "aroused" and you have a cheeky yet warm story about love, friendship and lovely pairs of jugs heheits brilliantdont be put off by sub-tit-les hehe!


If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.


As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.


I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.


This has to be one of the best comedies on the television at the moment. It takes the sugary-sweet idea of a show revolving around a close family and turns it into a quite realistic yet funny depiction of a typical family complete with sibling and parent spats, brat brothers, over-protective fathers and bimbo sisters. I'm almost surprised it's Disney!To its credit, '8 Simple Rules' knows it's a comedy and doesn't try to be more. Too many shows (eg, 'Sister, Sister' and 'Lizzie McGuire') think just because its lead characters are now teenagers then they should tackle social issues and end up losing their humour by being too hard-hitting. This is a trap '8 Simple Rules' has avoided; it does tackle some issues (such as being the school outcast) but it has fun while doing so. In fact the only time it has really been serious was understandably when it sensitively handled the tragic death of John Ritter and his character.And I think, although John Ritter will be sadly missed since he was the reason the show made its mark, '8 Simple Rules' can still do well if it remembers its humour and doesn't make Cate's father a second version of Paul Hennessy.


The film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience. But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking "really, is that so" etc. to each other, or characters saying "no" or "are you listening to me," ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes.


Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.


This has some excellent spots but the length of the film can not sustain the wafer thin plot. It is another sailors on leave film, zippier than Astaire's 'Follow the Fleet' but not as good as 'On The Town'. Kathryn Grayson is bland but Kelly and Sinatra work well together. Their 'If you Knew Susie' number is hilarious as they make up the song as they sing it. 'I Begged Her' is also fun with Sinatra showing how adept he was at hoofing. Sinatra's solo songs are dull and seem to be inserted to show off his singing rather than as part of the story. Fortunately there are accomplished supporting actors like Grady Sutton, Rags Ragland, Carlos Ramirez and Pamela Britton and an unlikely but impertubable Jose Iturbi as himself, to keep one watching.Kelly is the star of the film, although third billed and it is interesting to see him interact with children, which Astaire never did. Dean Stockwell plays a child who wants to be in the navy and latches on to the Kelly character. He also visit a school resulting in him telling the children a fictitious story of his life in the Pomeranian (!)navy which leads to his wonderful dance with an animated Jerry Mouse. In another scene he dances a charming Mexican Hat Dance with a sublimely grave faced little girl, Sharon McManus, that is entrancing and sweet. Very pleasant then but a bit too long. A taster of better musicals to come.


No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: * Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at timesIf you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.Vikings didn't have horns by the way...


While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?


If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com


The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top. Poison Clan rocks!


The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.


1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.


This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.


Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.


Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending.


Since Douglas MacArthur affected more human livesfor the betterthan any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's "MacArthur" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early "Star Trek" episode "The Corbomite Maneuver" (1966) to the recent HBO films "Something the Lord Made" (2OO4) and "Warm Springs" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us "Patton" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was "four years in preparation and production." Yet for all of this, "MacArthur" is perfectly adequateand not much more than that.The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was orderedby President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits: · MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmenthus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons; · his graduation from West Pointfirst in a class of 95, · how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines; · his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz; · how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General; · his postwar service as West Point's youngestand most progressivecommandant; · his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924; · his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932; · his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's; · his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines; · and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boatthus, we know that "General Mac" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to "Dugout Doug"and so patently unfounded.The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping "Hit 'em where they ain't" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos "I shall return!"his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that "old soldiers
simply fade away," after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactionsagain, see Warm Springsthis refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.And finally, there is a sort of "made on the cheap" feel to the film, as there is to "Midway," released about the same time. Both films were relegated to "television" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on "Midway," and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his "Patton" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatnessand love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.In the end, "MacArthur"like so many film biographiesis a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it.