I love Sabrina! Its one of my fave shows!! My favourite episodes are; the one where she turns Libby into a geek, the first episode, the true love episode and most of the rest from the first series. I do think the college episodes were not as good as the high school ones but they were better than the last series which was awful. Valerie was a good character as she was more rounded than Jenny, but Jenny was in some brilliant episodes. Hilda and Zelda were amazing, and there seemed to be no explanation for where they went! Libby was a good character too. I never liked Morgan or Roxy, they just weren't as good as her other friends.


Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, "The Song of Ruth" and "Esther and the King." It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife.


Okay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped "Copolla" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly "in." I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic!


This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.


Yes it was a little low budget, but this movie shows love! The only bad things about it was that you can tell the budget on this film would not compare to "Waterworld" and though the plot was good, the film never really tapped into it's full potential! Strong performances from everyone and the suspense makes it worthwhile to watch on a rainy night.


Ah, Moonwalker, I'm a huge Michael Jackson fan, I grew up with his music, Thriller was actually the first music video I ever saw apparently. Believe it or not there was a time where Michael Jackson was like a God to people, a time where women fainted at the sight of him before really fainting before seeing the sight of him, sorry, Michael. But Moonwalker was what started to be a tribute to all of Michael's success of the time right when he released his famous Bad album that was record breaking, was the first album to have 6 top ten singles. Michael is an incredible artist, there is no doubt, he writes, sings, dances, but when it comes to acting or keeping a story straight with his audience
 not so much.We start off pretty simple: Jackson's music, life, career, success and the mania that was the 80's biggest star in the world Michael Jackson. Later on, Jackson is a 30's style gangster who uses his powers as a crime figure to protect the children. When Jackson was allowed to be near children, we cut to him playing in a field with the children and their dog. The dog runs away, and in their search for it, Jackson and the children uncover the lair of Mr. Big, Frankie Lideo, a drug dealing mobster with an army of henchmen who wants to get the entire populace of planet earth addicted to drugs, starting with the children. Mr. Big discovers Jackson and the children, but they escape; Jackson tells the children to meet him at Club 30's, which turns out to be a haunted nightclub abandoned since the 1930s. The story goes back to the mobsters attack on Jackson, and here it is revealed that Jackson is actually a magical gangster, who draws his power from shooting stars. As one passes by the club, Jackson transforms into a sports car and mows down several of Mr. Big's henchmen. The story picks up on the children at Club 30's, and at first the children are afraid, but when Jackson appears the scary atmosphere of the club transforms and the children find themselves back in the 1930s. The club is now filled with zoot suiters and swing dancers. Jackson participates in a dance-off with the other club members, which serves as the music video for "Smooth Criminal". At the climax of the song, Mr. Big lays siege to the club and kidnaps one of the children, Katie. Jackson follows them back to Big's lair and ends up surrounded by his henchmen. Mr. Big appears and mentally tortures Jackson by threatening to inject Katie with highly addictive narcotics. While Katie manages to just grab Joe Pesci's glasses and get free from being injected, Mr. Big decides he's had enough and orders his men to kill Katie before finishing off Jackson, but not before a shooting star flies by. Jackson transforms into a giant robot and kills all of Mr. Big's soldiers. Yup, ummm, you want more weirdness? Watch the movie.Moonwalker is fun for the first half hour, seeing Michael's success and all his hard work really makes his fans appreciate him once again. Is it mostly to hype up his album? Yeah, I love how he spends the first 25 minutes praising how awesome he is, then we go to his song called "Leave Me Alone", which is kind of hypocritical, not that it's not a great song, just a small turn of events. Then when we skip the crummy acting, the story was incredibly weak: The villain spells his name out loud while Michael and Katie are spying on him, lol, Michael is a transformer all of a sudden, the villain's big monster plan is to make kids high? Also the villain has some sort of massive ray gun that would make Marvin the Martian blush. But if there is one new thing that is incredible that the movie gives us is the new video for Smooth Criminal. This music video is perfection, it's choreographing, it's setting, it's song, it's smooth style, Michael always goes above and beyond perfection and Smooth Criminal was incredible. I loved Moonwalker as a kid, I still watch it for fun to this day, but it's not the best movie by any means, it's pretty silly, but it's all good if you're a Michael Jackson fan as well.7/10


Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).


I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?3 out of 10.


Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.


I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"


Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.


I took a chance on "Hardcastle and McCormick" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection.


I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.


I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.


I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie.


Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!Are you getting the picture?


This is one of my favorite family movies. Loved it when I was little and it still holds up with me now that I'm older. I still laugh at all the same old jokes and might even shed a tear a times. I never have much cared for animals talking, or at least UN-animated ones but this one I'll stand up for. It's a pretty old movie but it will always hold a place in my heart.There aren't any other live animal movies that I can think of at the moment that I even could compare with, let alone like as much as this one. I might be giving too much praise to this movie but I don't think show. I really holds that great message that" Home is where the heart is." Or at least that's the message I gained from it. Definitely recommended for a good old family movie night.


When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap.


I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina. Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection. There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.


Very funny to watch "Beretta's Island" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!


This movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, "Why is your dick over there, Chuck?" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent "Darkness Falls". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood.


The fact that this movie made it all the way to the rentalrack in Norway is bizarre. This movie is just awful. This image quality is just one teeny bit better than you get of a mobile phone and the plot is soooo bad. The main character is just plain annoying and the rest just suck. Every person affiliated with this movie should be ashamed. The fact that the people that made this movie put their name on this is extraordinary. And the distributors; did they even see it!? This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. To label this a comedy is an insult to mankind. I urge you not to support this movie by buying or renting it.


What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.


Antonioni, by making this film, had assumed the role of Papa Smurf to all the little long-haired, American, radical student-Smurfs. He had taken them under the guiding protection of his European communist wings, showing appreciation and support for their confused American ways. (These Smurfs are red and wear blue, not the other way around.) The radical Smurfs were happy to get the guidance of a wise old man with gray hair who regularly preys to the God of all long-haired Smurfs, Lenin the Communist - another wise old man whose beard made the Smurfs take him even more seriously, for it symbolized something wise, though they did not quite know why they regarded the beard to have this kind of deep effect on them. Castro, another wise bearded man, has often profited from this confusion and exuded magical powers with his beard over his naive overseas admirers. (Not to mention Che Guevara: that beard has a certain je-ne-sais-pas-quoi about it, makes one want to immediately embrace Marx and his lovely, pacifistic teachings
) The film starts with a muddled meeting of radically stupid radical students, who engage in dialogues that truly redefine the word "confused". As confused as a blind-folded dog falling of a high-story building into a bottomless pit. Suddenly, the movie's "hero" (well, Antonioni's hero) rises up and says something to his pathetic left-wing peers and then leaves, hoping that this display of "mega-coolness" will improve his James Dean image and vastly increase his chances of getting laid with the best "chicks" in the next mass hippie orgy. Eventually he gets into trouble with cops (i.e. pigs) at a rally, and spends the movie under the blue American capitalist skies, looking for freedom
 Or something like that.Antonioni's predictable assault on capitalism is not only intellectually hollow, but has (or had) nothing new to offer; it's just the same old trigger-happy one-dimensional cops, businessmen discussing business deals (and what's wrong with that, isn't that how Antonioni's movies get made?), and endless shots of TV commercials and billboards advertising the oh-so morally decadent products for the abhorrent, selfish, and greedy right-wing rabble-population who thinks of no one but themselves, their families, their work, and their children.Papa Smurf Antonioni, just like his long-haired Smurfs and Smurfettes of the late 60s, failed to notice the most obvious and vital aspect about their silly movement: they were allowed to have their laughable meetings and express their anti-establishment opinions freely within that very establishment, whereas the students in those countries whose left-wing systems they admired, did not (and still do not). By far the greatest irony about the hippies - and Antonioni, naturally, failed to realize this as well (his judgment being clouded by cocaine-snorting and an excessive intake of LSD) - is that hippies were (are) the garbage-residue of capitalism. This is an incredible irony. Only in a successfully-functioning capitalist system can you find that species called "hippie"; a spoiled, ungrateful, and selfish bunch of middle and upper-middle class losers.The film itself seems to go on forever. Antonioni takes his sweet time with getting on with it, while including overlong scenes of pointlessness, with a high dullness factor. His attempts at symbolism are annoying and trite. His statements are highly dubious, at best. This film is Antonioni's way of saying that violent revolution is the solution. And this is what we get from an old, saturated, filthy-rich, fat film-maker who lives in villas and dines in the best French and Italian restaurants.I don't remember seeing any major Western movie about the Tiananmen massacre of thousands of students in China. But when one Western student gets shot for waving Che Guevara's face into all our faces, we get ten major films about it at once. I suppose this means that a Chinese life is worth a thousand times less than a Western one  at least to the left-wing hypocrites who infest movies.If you're a Marxist neo-hippy and disliked this awful review, please klick "NO" below.


At the beginning of the film we watch May and Toots preparing for their trip to London for a visit to their grown children. One can see Toots is not in the best of health, but he goes along. When he dies suddenly, May's world, begins to spin out of control.The film directed by Roger Michell, based on a screen play by Hanif Kureshi, is a study of how this mother figure comes to terms with her new status in life and her awakening into a world that she doesn't even know it existed until now.May's life as a suburban wife was probably boring. Obviously her sexual life was next to nothing. We get to know she's had a short extra marital affair, then nothing at all. When May loses her husband she can't go back home, so instead, she stays behind minding her grandson at her daughter's home. It is in this setting that May begins lusting after young and hunky Darren, her daughter's occasional lover.Darren awakes in May a passion she has not ever known. May responds by transforming herself in front of our eyes. May, who at the beginning of the film is dowdy, suddenly starts dressing up, becoming an interesting and attractive woman. She ends up falling heads over heels with this young man that keeps her sated with a passion she never felt before.Having known a couple of cases similar to this story, it came as no surprise to me to watch May's reaction. Her own chance of a normal relationship with Bruce, a widower, ends up frustratingly for May, who realizes how great her sex is with Darren. The younger man, we figure, is only into this affair to satisfy himself and for a possibility of extorting money from May. Finally, the daughter, Helen discovers what Mum has been doing behind her back when she discovers the erotic paintings her mother has made.The film is a triumph for the director. In Anne Reid, Mr. Michell has found an extraordinary actress who brings so much to the role of May. Also amazing is Daniel Craig. He knows how Darren will react to the situation. Anna Wilson Jones as Helen is also vital to the story as she is the one that has to confront the mother about what has been going on behind her back. Oliver Ford Davies plays a small part as Bruce the older man in Helen's class and is quite effective.The film is rewarding for those that will see it with an open mind.


This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.


"The Incredible Melting Man" is a fantastically gross, trashy and energetic Z-grade production that every self-respecting camp-horror freak simply has to see for him/herself! The ideal way to describe this low-budget 70's gem is like a shameless copy of Hammer's "The Quatermass Xperiment" ...only a thousand times filthier! Astronaust Steve West is the only survivor of a disastrous space-mission, but turns out the carrier of a horrible disease that makes him radioactive and ... causes him to melt! In shock after seeing his face in the mirror (can you blame him?), Steve busts out of the hospital, leaving a trail of sticky pus and fallen off body parts behind. Doctor Ted Nelson has to find him urgently, as the disease also set Steve up with an insatiable appetite for human flesh. The premise may sound utterly stupid but this flick is enormously entertaining and contains great make-up effects from the hand of Rick Baker. The melting dude's face looks like a rotting pizza and his heavy breathing makes him sound like Darth Vader! Another big advantage is that William Sachs' screenplay doesn't waste any time on tedious scientific explanations or emotional speeches. The repulsiveness starts right away and lasts until the very last moment of the film. Just enjoy this silly horror gem and try to switch off your brain activity as much as you can because, if you start contemplating about the many stupidities in the script, you'll miss out on all the campy fun!


Again Stacy Peralta is true first to the people who lived the story. By letting those involved in the genesis of big wave surfing tell us their stories, how it felt and what they thought, you get the feeling of having been there. The film carries you from the fifties to the near present by focusing on three primary architects contributing to the evolution and development of the sport. Candid "home movie" like videos of themselves and their contemporaries take you further into their world. The layers of music, culture, technical information,a pure view of the participant's athleticism, and fabulous big wave images you get a full scope perspective of this aspect of surfing.Thoroughly worth watching.


Perhaps more than many films, this one is not for everyone. For some folks the idea of slowing down, reflecting and allowing things to happen in their own time is a good description of their personal hell. For others an approach like this speaks to some deep part of themselves they know exists, some part they long for contact with.I suppose it's a function of where I am in my own life these days, but I count myself in the camp of the latter group. I found the meditative pace of this film almost hypnotic, gently guiding me into some realm almost mythological. This is indeed a journey story, a rich portrayal of the distance many of us must travel if we are to come full circle at the end of our days.Much as been written of Mr Farnsworth's presentation of Alvin Straight, though I'm not sure there are words to express the exquisite balance of bemused sadness and wise innocence he conjured for us. Knowing now that he was indeed coming to terms with his own mortality as he sat on that tractor seat makes me wish I had had the opportunity to spend time with him before his departure. I hope he had a small glimmer of the satisfaction and truth he had brought to so many people, not just for "acting" but for sharing his absolute humanity with such brutal honesty.Given the realities of production economics, I'm not sure full credit has been given Mr Lynch for the courage he showed in allowing the story to develop so slowly. An outsider to film production, I nonetheless understand there are few areas of modern life where the expression "time is money" is so accurately descriptive. Going deep into our hearts is not an adventure that can be rushed, and to his credit Mr Lynch seems to have understood that he was not simply telling a story--he was inviting his viewers to spend some time with their own mortality. No simple task, that.If you'd like to experience the power of film to take introduce you to some precious part of yourself, you could do worse than spending a couple of hours with The Straight Story. And then giving yourself some time for the next little while simply listening to its echoes in the small hours of the night.


... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.


With a minimal budget, a running time of eight minutes and a great amount of imagination, Nacho Vigalondo has achieved one of the most moving shorts I've ever seen. The subtlety of the screenplay is really remarkable, since it doesn't give the ending away until the very last moment.Don't let anybody tell you what the short is about, since you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more. Nacho Vigalondo is the discovery of the year for his one-man show: directing, writing and acting in this formidable short is the most remarkable effort I've seen in years. Also pay attention to the performance of Marta Belenguer, her reaction shots are incredible.Overall rating: 8/10


The most positive thing I can say for this dull witted local "comedy" production is that it's inoffensive. In fact it's so astonishingly bland that one wonders how many dozens of re-writes by committee it went through to have such a complete removal of personality. It's not witty, it's not entertaining, it's not insightful, and it's not charming. It's just a staid, laughless, progression of four losers who must change their ways - and their attitudes towards women - to be allowed to attend their best friend's wedding.With acting that would be sub par for the local amateur dramatics society, a plot line so tired it'd make a forty third season of 'Allo 'Allo look fresh, and jokes about as humorous as watching decaying vegetables, Sione's Wedding nonetheless scored ten (yes 10) nominations in the NZ film awards recently.Fortunately, somebody saw sense and it didn't win any.


Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC!


I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...


I was intrigued by the title, so during a small bout of insomnia (fueled by my curiosity...), I stayed up and watched it. I then checked my TV listings and watched it again! There is one very obvious realization that occurred to me when I saw this film- in spite of politics, traditions, culture, etc., teenagers everywhere are virtually the same. The characters of the kids from Belgrade could have been transported to, let's say, somewhere in the American Midwest during the same time period, and language differences aside, would be impossible to tell apart from any of the local teens of that era. They certainly displayed the same growing pains and preoccupations, politics aside: Music, sex, movie idols, music, drinking, sports, music... As a matter of fact, much the same things that occupied my time growing up in 1970's Southern California.This was a bittersweet story, but the joy of youth made it very enjoyable. The characters, especially the young actors, were completely believable also. I won't say this was the Yugoslav "American Graffiti", but I will say that it fits in nicely with other 50's-themed movies.


Scott Bartlett's 'OffOn' is nine minutes of pure craziness. It is a full-frontal assault of psychedelic, pulsating, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights and colours, and the first true merging of film and video in avante-garde cinema. There's no story to speak of, but Bartlett uses images of nature  particularly the human face and form  to provoke a sequence of emotional reactions, integrating these biological phenomena into the highly-industrial form of modern technology. In a sense, the film represents the merging of humanity into his tools, his machinery, his technology. This theme connects loosely with the subplot of HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),' and, indeed, Bartlett's opening sequence of images  flashing colours before a close-up human eye  recalls Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. The visuals are richly-coloured, a confronting blend of sharp, vivid photography and increasingly-grainy video, as though we're sitting too close to a television screen {as a matter of fact, the end product was recorded from a TV monitor}.There appears to be some confusion about the film's release date. IMDb lists the film as a 1972 release, but both the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Foundation give 1968 as the correct year. Perhaps this disparity reflects the time between the film's completion and its first public screening. Either way, the visuals are distinctly ahead of their time, occasionally reminiscent of a 1980s music video, and some brisk techno music wouldn't have gone amiss, either! 'OffOn' captures grainy, fragmented images, presenting life from the warped perspective of a computer processing too much information. I had a thought  and please don't laugh at this free-thinking interpretation  that an extraterrestrial civilisation capturing Earth's television signals might very well receive such a disjointed, alien documentation of human life, a bizarre montage of only vaguely-familiar imagery that couldn't possibly make any coherent sense. Perhaps this is where Mankind, with all his technology, is eventually heading, towards an irreversible merging of film and video, of purity and artificiality.


I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.


I thought the movie "I Do They Don't" was fantastic. In the past I've watched Rob Estes on "Suddenly Susan" & "Melrose Place" and also Josie Bissett on "Melrose Place" and loved seeing them together again in "I Do They Don't". They have great chemistry together (I guess being married in real life helps that!) - in the movie they are both widowed with children and careers and they fall in love and try blend their already busy chaotic families together without dropping the ball. Of course they stumble, but they keep it together which is what working and raising a family is all about. So many people have been talking about this movie - all good! - and the movie left us wanting more. This would make a great series - appealing to many ages! - it would be so nice to see a real life, down to earth, family show like this that portrays the reality of so many of our lives today - instead of the so called "Reality TV" that all the stations are overwhelming us with these days. Someone tell the people at ABC Family they have the start of a new series here!


OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and waitHe makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this filmOK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedyWe have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at allWe have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other storiesWe have John- Vidya story a good story in all respectsBut then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it worksActors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a changeSohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissalPriyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay


Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME! PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $) PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!


I haven't watched the movie yet, but can't wait to see it! It seems very interesting and inspirational. It was one of the most interesting trailers I've ever seen: the questions it posed really stopped me and made me think, the unique approach to the sport of boxing as a metaphor for the "battle within"... thank god somebody is hitting another angle with the boxing thing. This film looks so fresh and smart. And the actor is really hot. I especially enjoyed the short clip with the actor from the Rocky movies, really clever. I thought that the topic selected-overcoming adversities and childhood traumas-is timeless, and god knows a lot of people need it. Bring it on.


I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.


Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here.


For a film that's ostensibly about sex and leather, it doesn't have any right to be as oddly sweet as it is. The story of Bettie Page, a good Christian girl from the South who's momma wouldn't let her date until she married, who moved to New York and ended up becoming the most successful pin-up of her age, is driven by an outstanding performance from Gretchen Moll. Her Page can't quite reconcile the pictures that she takes (nobody's allowed to touch, it's all fun and respectful) with the pornography trials and supposed ill-effects that her images have on the world around her.Page has been an inspiration to every burlesque artist since, not just because she had a figure to die for, but because she invested every picture with an innocent sense of fun that was uniquely sexy and simple at the same time. Rather like this film, in fact. Filmde in both black and white and glorious technicolour, it's a lovely way to spend a couple of hours.


I saw "Mystery Men" on my birthday in 1999 while I was away on vacation. When I came back home, I went to see it again. Keep in mind, I was twelve, but at that time it was the coolest movie ever. I even collected the ultra-rare action figures (I have them all except for the Bowler, which is the hardest to find. They made Mr. Furious, The Shoveler, The Blue Raja, The Spleen and Captain Amazing, in case your wondering. There IS a William H. Macy action figure in existence!). I've watched it many times over the years and it still remains a favorite of mine, due mostly to fond childhood memories. It's not a perfect movie, but it definitely deserves another look and perhaps a cult following.The story: a bunch of low-level superheroes save the day. This was executed again in the mediocre, direct-to-video "The Specials" as well. But this is the other end of the spectrum: big budget (huge budget, almost $100 Million I think) studio comedy. Yes, the effects are overblown and the huge sets and wonderful production design are a bit much considering the plot. But don't think this as a stupid, special effects-y superhero movie--it's a PARODY. They fight a villain named Cassanova Frankenstein, people. He has a psychofrakulator, whatever that is (it's a doomsday device, he'll take over the world, yada yada.) And resident superhero Captain Amazing (a Zapp Brannigan-esque Greg Kinnear, with commercial-product-logos on his costume, nice touch) is kidnapped. Time for the Mystery Men: Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller, gets mad), The Shoveller (William H. Macy, beats people with shovels), The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria, British, throws forks), The Bowler (Janeane Garafolo, bowls), Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell, guess what he does), The Spleen (the great Paul Reubens, farts), and The Sphinx (Wes Studi, cuts guns in half with his mind, I am not kidding). The rest of the fantastic cast of character actors includes Geoffrey Rush as Cassanova, Lena Olin heavily edited out as Cassanova's bride, and the one and only Tom Waits as a crazy weapons dealer. So...with Macy, Kinnear, Olin, and Rush there are four Oscar-nominees (and one winner) and Tom freakin' Waits! It's not perfect though. It's overlong and there are some gushes of corniness here and there (The Shoveller's full of them).The dialogue definitely outweighs the physical comedy, which is sometimes lacking (there's a guy who farts for his power, case closed). The dialogue is definitely a highlight, the cyclical ramblings of the Sphinx, the mixed metaphors of Mr. Furious, etc. It's downright a funny movie, (it will almost make you forget that this was the film that let "All Star" by Smashmouth out into the world.) Unfortunately, the film did not do as well with critics and audiences as it should have. A sequel was originally planned (the film is in fact based on a comic book and characters from "The Flaming Carrot" comics. The Flaming Carrot was planned for the sequel I believe) but this did not do well at the box office. It could have been a hard sell, a superhero comedy with the guy from "There's Something About Mary." It also could have been the fact that it was released on the same day as "The Sixth Sense"--which ended up being the biggest hit for the month of August--as well as "The Thomas Crown Affair." Two other misunderstood classics were released on the same crowded weekend, oddly enough--"Dick" and "The Iron Giant." Critics gave MM passable reviews, but it was quickly forgotten. Sadly enough, on Comedy Central's Roast of Jerry Stiller, comedian Jeffrey Ross commented to Ben Stiller that, "I saw 'Mystery Men' and I fired MY agent." Ben is then seen to mouth the words, "I should have to." Don't listen to him. Give "Mystery Men" a chance.


The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them  of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this  This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character  Hauser, the killer with a heart  exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character  tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside  and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry  to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!!


This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee


I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations. Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all.


First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.


I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a "7" rated movie!


This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson. In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share? Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be.


I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.


I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.


This movie rocks" Jen sexy as ever and Polly wow were we really ever that young this movie can still touch the hearts of a lot of teens it needs to be put on DVD soon or it will become a classic. i Really enjoyed growing up to this movie i have always had a crush on Jen now i am too old but to this movie is made for all gens> you know i come from the early 80,s area were i Had to watch everyone els live the life i wanted but thru movies i can do that all over again i guess in short i am hoping and wishing that this movie not be lost in time but reborn to the youth so they may enjoy the heart warm filling you get learning about hormones and datting problems and how to get away with stuff that seems so major back then but don't mean nothan now so this movie is a dating tool.


My all-time favorite movie! I have seen many movies, but this one beats them all! Excelent acting, wonderful story. You will, as a "normal" caring person start to love George. Altough he is an actor, he is also himself and a very lovable person. And maby most important thing: you will learn to respect & look different to people with Down Syndrome.


MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director.


This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value.


I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch. They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.The DVD I have watched feels edited for television.


My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.As such it is a true classic.Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire.


Honestly, who in God's name gave this movie an 8.1 rating?? I guess the people who actually made or starred in the movie were the ones who voted. Otherwise this movie sucks! This movie is nothing more than an amateur, or possibly student, film. I'm a movie fanatic, and have seen terrible movies, but there was literally nothing redeeming here. The story and acting was the worst I've ever seen. The props, including the use of toy airsoft guns with terrible special effects, where just as bad as everything else. I'm all for bad language in movies, but the F-Bomb was dropped about every third word and I think we might have a winner for the most use of the F-Bomb in any movie EVER. The movie also appears to have been filmed using cheap video cameras and not actual film. I'd expect this to get awards for an amateur movie shown only on public access stations around the country, but it doesn't belong on a DVD.Do not buy this movie. Do not rent this movie. All I can say was that this was a terrible waste of a free movie rental coupon. This is valuable time that you will NEVER get back. Unfortunately for me, that time is lost, but it's not too late for you. If you decide to rent this movie, consider this my warning.


Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.


This is the best of the 43 films that Rainer Werner Fassbinder made; his most successful at least. He was one of the leading directors in the New Germany after WWII.Hanna Schygulla was magnificent as the cold, calculating Maria Bruan, who lost her husband to the War, found him after she took an American soldier as a lover, lost him again after he went to jail for her, and found him agin at the end. Her day and a half marriage before he disappeared was longer than their time together at the end.Such is life. Things come and go, and you do the best you can. You can give up or adjust you way of thinking to survive. Even though Maria adjusted her thinking and did what she had to do, she never stopped loving Hermann, which makes the end such a tragedy.Excellent drama.


I saw this film and heard the writer-director, Juan Gerard, speak at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival.All I knew about it was that it was the story of an 8-year-old boy at the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1958 and how it affects his home and family.Its opening scene will bring to mind "Cinema Paradiso". In fact, the film is filled with references to classic films: The Roulette Wheel (Casablanca), "chicken clucking" (Rebel Without a Cause), references to Bunuel, "Touch of Evil"; you'll find more. The homeless man (Georg Stanford Brown)is a reference to Cuban folklore which often uses a black man as a type of Greek chorus.What this film really is is the culmination of a dream. Gerard's wish to honor his family and medium of film that he has loved all of his life.This is the true story of Juan Gerard and all the people in it are real,as are the events depicted. Gerard is actually an architect and engineer (and passionate film lover) but his dream was to make this movie. He and his wife decided to live that dream and Harvey Keitel became an "angel" who believed in Gerard and agreed to produce and star in it. Keitel holds the screen powerfully as the mysterious and secretive grandfather "Che". Brown and Keitel are the only Americans in the cast. Iben Hjejle (High Fidelity) and Gael Garcia Bernal (Y tu Mama Tambien) offer strong support in key roles.Truthfully, the first half of the film suffers from stiff delivery of lines, and some overracting, but stay with it. The last half is much better as the events of the revolution combine for the bittersweet, and honest climax. It is the first effort of Juan Gerard, but it is honest as he is and his passion and heart really come through,in this sincere first effort. I would definitely see it again, and hope that he continues his film career.


When I took my seat in the cinema I was in a cool mood and didn't plan on changing it. But this movie is a dramatic powerhouse. I was all in sweat and needed a shower afterward. So what have we? Theoretically a coming of age story of a teenage Turkish girl living in Copenhagen, Denmark. It came to my mind soon that the plot seemed pretty much completely borrowed from "Bend it like Beckham", where we had an Indian girl playing football and spoiling the wedding of her sister. Here we have it transferred to a Turkish girl spoiling her brother's wedding by doing Kung Fu. And we have a love story and a competition of course, too. After I accepted this, this really turned out to be a gripping, emotional drama and it shows off some beautiful Kung Fu (I'm not an expert, though). The lead actress Semra Turan is not only Denmark's female champion but she also delivers an excellent performance, so that it appears to be safe to assume that we have quite some autobiographic impressions here taking into account that this is her first movie and that she has no education as an actress. Rest of the supporting cast is okay, camera good, Kung Fu intense. Sidenotes: - The male Turkish audience showed respect so that they must have done something right. - The audience burst into cheers when our heroine finally fought back and attacked the boys who were gravely beating up her brother in revenge. - Xian Gao, a Chinese cinematic Kung Fu instructor/actor (Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon) played the lead role's masterIf you get the chance to see this in cinema do it, you'll probably have a good and intense experience and I don't know if this works on small screen as well


SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian.


This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.


"Foxes" is a serious look at the consequences of growing up too fast in the 1980s. And unlike the teen sex comedies that overshadowed it (Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgement High), the movie holds up well against time.Its theme of teen angst is as relevant today as it was 25 years ago and Jodie Foster and sk8er boi Scott Baio (remember him?) lead a fine young cast that's well worth watching.The film follows four Southern California girls as they move through a rootless existence of sex and drugs and devoid of parents. The teens spend their days in and out of school and their nights at parties, concerts, or out on the street. Seldom are they home because instant gratification is a pill, party, or boy away.But rather than condemning them, the film is sympathetic, blaming absent, uncaring adults for forcing the teens to grow up alone. And the charismatic cast is impossible to dislike.The film's opening  a long and loving pan - sets the tone for what follows. We see the girls asleep at daybreak amid the objects that define teen girlhood, from Twinkies to a picture of a young John Travola, while Donna Summer's "On the Radio" is scored beneath.From there the movie picks up speed as the girls head off to school and to life. Annie (Runaway rocker Cherie Currie) is the wild child who lives for the next party or pill. Deirdre (Kandice Stroh) is the boy crazy drama queen. Madge (Marlilyn Stroh) is the shy girl in over her head. And Foster is the one with the plan. It's her job to keep this crew together long enough to finish high school while also holding her divorced and desperate man hunting mother in line (Sally Kellerman).It's an almost impossible job and one that Foster ultimately fails at.Despite its age, "Foxes" remains a pleasure to watch. Dated hair, clothes, and references to Olympic skater Dorothy Hamill haven't hurt the movie.The cinematography is simply stunning, with breathtaking filtered shots of the L.A. basin at dawn, dusk and at night. Giorgio Moroder adds a 80s soundtrack featuring the likes of Donna Summer and Janis Ian.Perhaps the movie's biggest disappointment is that the young stars around Foster never broke out like the casts of "St. Elmo's Fire" (1985) or "Empire Records" (1995). "Foxes" shows why they should have. But perhaps like Bowling for Soup's song "1985," they just hit a wall.


That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No.


You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?


This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.


My title above says it all. Let me make it clearer. If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much. And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it. I was excited to check it out.Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery. And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth".The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth".We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" . I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize. I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids. Yes, the narration is quite kiddish. Let me give you an example. When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids. They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell. This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !


I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either. The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction. It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a clichéd, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver. 2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario. 3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Clichéd Acting Mannerisms. 4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant. I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.


I enjoyed this film. It was a joy to see a version so close to the vision of Peter O'Donnell.A number of people have disliked the film, but it has to be seen in context of the origin story that it is. The film uses flashback to show the young Modesty and the events that shaped her into the woman that she became. Before the Network. Before Willie Garvin.The pace is a trifle slow, and for my taste not enough tension is developed in the present day scenes. However this is acceptable just to get such a faithful version.If you like Modesty Blaise, you will enjoy it even with its faults, if you just want an action flick with car chases - forget it.It has the feeling of being the first of a franchise, but as I have never seen it promoted anywhere, I suspect there will be no more to follow. Sadly.


You spend most of this two-hour film wondering "what's the story regarding the lead character?" Will Smith, as a low-key "Ben Thomas" will keep you guessing. The last 20-25 minutes is when you find out, and it's a shocker....but you knew something dramatic was going to be revealed. Until then, Smith, plays it mysterious, almost stalking people. You know he has a good reason for doing it, but it's never really explained, once again, to keep us guessing until the end.All of it, including a on again/off again but touching romance with Rosario Dawkins ("Emily Posa") might make some viewers frustrated or wanting to quit this film.....but don't because the final long segment puts all the pieces of this puzzle together.This is a two-hour film and not the typical action-packed macho Will Smith film. In fact, the most shocking aspect might be seeing the drawn, sad face of Smith throughout this story. It almost doesn't even look like him in a number of shots. He looks like he's lost weight and is sick. Smith does a great job portraying a man carrying around a lot of sadness.Like a good movie will often do, this film will leave you thinking long after the ending credits.


Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing.


All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this  that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!.


TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!


The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry..."Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be founddesperate to find it :medically unable to serve


Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, who were both so memorable in 1944's "Laura, re-teamed for this excellent 1950 film-noir.An embittered policeman, Andrews as Mark, can't get over the fact that his father was a hoodlum who died in a police shootout while trying to break out of jail. As a result of his bitterness, Mark doesn't know when to stop using his hands. It's this inability that leads to the accidental death of a small-time hood.(Craig Stevens)In trying to frame gangster Gary Merrill, Mark unintentionally puts the heat on innocent cab-drive, Tom Tully, who is the father of Gene Tierney, who was separated by Stevens.This is a well-thought out film dealing with the conscience of a basically decent human being.The ending is not exactly upbeat as Mark will have to face the music. At least, he finally admits to what he has done.


speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his "friends" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a "ok i'm outta here!" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.Coherence.thanks for reading ;)


The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of "posh totty" to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling.


Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.


There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive