This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!


I saw the movie last night here at home, but I thought it was too long first of all. Second, the things I saw in the movie were way too out of text to even have in this what I thought was going to be a comedy type movie like the rest before. The things isn't funny in the movie: fiancé hitting his girlfriend, beatings. The movie was way too long--talk about wanting to go to sleep and wondering when it will end when you wake up and still have it playing! Some of the things at the reunion were too much to capture--like the lady singing--i felt like i was almost watching a spiritual song show here! come on Perry, you can do better then this!


I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can
 become one with
 a good dragon
 or something
 I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes
 You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars
 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.


An old man works as a janitor in a mental hospital to be close to his wife who is a patient there and to try to get her out.This is surely one of the most forgotten masterpieces of the silent era and an oddity in the history of Japanese cinema. Long thought lost, a print was found in the 70s and a music soundtrack added to it, which fits perfectly with the images. It might have been influenced by cabinet of doctor Caligary (director Kinugasa claimed he never saw the German film). However it surpasses it in style and in its more convincing (and chilly) portray of the inner mental state of the inmates in the asylum. To achieve this, the film makes use of every single film technique available at the time: multiple exposures and out of focus subjective point of view, tilted camera angles, fast and slow motion, expressionist lighting and superimpositions among others. It is also a very complicated film to follow, as it has not got intertitles.The film opens with a montage of shots of rain hitting the windows of the hospital, wind shaking trees and of thunder. The unsettling weather metaphors the mental condition of the patients and introduces one of the them: a former dancer. The combination of sounds produced by rain, wind and thunder serves as the music that incites the dancer to get into a frantic, almost hypnotic dance. In another sequence involving the same patient engaged in another frenzied dance, she is being watched by other inmates. Multiple exposures of the dancer represent the patients' point of view and their confused "view" of the world.These are just two examples from this amazing film trying to represent the patients' subconscious and view of the "sane" world.In three words A MUST SEE.


This movie could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Not that I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you'd think that even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question why a group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a hunting guide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his part as if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he's never seen before.And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?I'm assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of 9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie, cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended up being 43 minutes long.


My Take: A goofy, yet imaginative mess. Keanu Reeves (Yes! That Keanu Reeves) and Alex Winter return as the two punk-rock idiots in this sequel to the time-trotting adventure comedy BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, now a cult classic. In this sequel, Bill and Ted are given much more to do than travel through time. They might as well travel Heaven and Hell too! During the beginning of this sequel, Bill and Ted are preparing for a "Battle of the Bands" competition which may make them more famous than ever. Meanwhile, many years in a futuristic civilization, the time-wizard from the first film (the always watchable George Carlin) is running a university praising Bill and Ted's names. There, an evil tyrant (Joss Ackland, from THE HUNT FOR RED October) plots to get rid of the two idiot rock-stars once and for all. So he sends two identical android replicas (In the words of Bill and Ted: Robot Us's) to do the dirty job.There after, Bill and Ted experience death and must find their way through Hell, with inhabitants that happens to include the duo's worst memories, and then through Heaven in an attempt to get back to earth to save their girlfriends... and their show. Along this whacked-out voyage, they play board games with none other than Death (William Sadler, from DIE HARD 2), reminiscent to a similar moment in the 1957 foreign film classic THE SEVENTH SEAL, aid help from a couple of intelligent alien beings and more.BOGUS JOURNEY's array of exuberant special effects gimmicks aren't up to to-date standards, and even some of the humor and the for-the-time look and feel are somewhat dated (to be honest, the film also feels like it was released on the wrong year, even for the 90's). But with it's no little lack of imagination and a lively turn by both the performances and direction, BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is fun, imaginative, and yes, bogus.Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.


i watched this tape, immediately rewound it, watched it again and laughed twice as hard. I strongly recommend this tape for those who are not hateful of, but uncomfortable around transvestites. It shows you that transvestitism is a feature, rather than the entirety of one's being. The comedy is not single issue. This man is brilliant. All comics should aspire to his level of candor, intelligence and talent.


I remember Casper comic books, but don't remember any cartoons. Maybe they weren't memorable; I don't know but at my advanced age, here I am watching this very early Casper animated short yesterday. Afterward, I was shocked to read the user-comments here. Did people miss the ending?I have to learn all over again that Casper isn't like the other ghosts, who like to go out each night and scare the c--p out of everyone. "He sees no future in that," according to the narrator here. Instead, one night he goes out to the rural section of town, inadvertently scares some animals and can't find any friends. It brings him to tears, until a little fox hears him bawling and befriends him. The two become buddies but soon, the fox is running for his life with a fox hunt in progress.Other reviews have all mentioned what happens, so I'll touch on that, too. The fox is killed by hunting dogs (not shown) and Casper is in tears for losing "the only friend I ever had." But, nobody mentions the happy ending to this story. "Ferdie" the fox becomes a spirit-figure like Casper, jumps on his lap, licks his face and the narrator comments "they lived happily ever after." Both characters look overjoyed.What is so sad about that? This is a nice story with a nice, happy ending.


In late 1800s San Francisco, poor well-dressed Errol Flynn (as James J. Corbett) works at a bank, and enjoys attending local "fights" (boxing) with co-worker and drinking buddy Jack Carson (as Walter Lowrie). One day, pretty Alexis Smith (as Victoria Ware) walks into the "Comstock Bank", where Mr. Flynn works. Flynn is so taken with Ms. Smith's elegant beauty, he offers to carry her withdrawal purse. Smith is secretly taken with the handsome Flynn, but is put off by his brashness.Flynn's good deed (actually, pick-up attempt) gets him a complimentary membership in the snooty "Olympic Club", which conveniently includes a gymnasium (with boxing equipment). However, Flynn's presumptuous manner, and practical joking (he tickles men on the parallel bars) irritates "Club" members. When an English boxing champ visits the club, members endeavor to get Flynn to fight the man. They are hopeful Flynn will resign, humiliated by his defeat - but, Flynn wins! First time producer Robert Buckner puts together a nice package for Warner Brothers, and director Raoul Walsh. Mr. Buckner was, certainly, basking in the success of his contribution (screenplay) to the studio's brilliant "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Unfortunately, this story is positively ludicrous. There was a "Gentleman Jim" - this story is supposedly the filming of the real James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" - but, this movie must be significantly fictionalized.Flynn is a very appealing leading man; he maneuvers the script lightly, and should have been recognized, by the early 1940s, as an excellent actor. Many of Flynn's characterizations were (are?) overlooked as great performances, and this is one of them. Smith does well as his feminine interest, deftly transmitting her emotions for the viewer. Director Walsh makes the silliness look smooth and extravagant. The supporting cast is a treasure trove, from boisterous Alan Hale (as Pat Corbett) to walk-on Lon McCallister ("Paging Mr. Corbett").******** Gentleman Jim (1942) Raoul Walsh ~ Errol Flynn, Alexis Smith, Alan Hale


I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.1/10


This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could.


Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution  his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier  talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life  living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army  swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast  Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy  that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.


Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...


One the whole, this movie isn't perfect. It doesn't 'hang well' together as the story line is basically a bunch of hooks to hang jokes.Some of these jokes are a little 'too 80s' and tend to date the picture.But some of these jokes are classic.You know a movie has something special when you and your friends still reference silly quotes from it over 2 decades later.Plus, there are a bunch of familiar faces; Michael Keaton, Danny Devito, Joe Piscapo, Peter Boyle, Marilu Henner, Maureen Stapleton, Bob Eubanks, Griffin Dunne, and one of the last roles of Alan Hale Jr., the Skipper from Gilligan's Island.Also, there are some great absurdist moments, like when Johnny is labelling the puppies with a pricing gun, or the Pope making an appearance in Johnny's neighborhood. Also, the scene where the fake priest makes up a lot of words in Latin is excellent. ("Summa cum laude, magna cum laude, the radio's too louda... Post meridian, ante meridian, uncle meridian").Other Classic Scenes include Ramone Maroney butchering the English language Danny Devito urging Griffin Dunne to 'Play Ball' Peter Boyle thinking he lost his manhood The fake VD movieThis movie is no home run. But like 'Porky's', it has enough classic comedy bits to make it memorable.


Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.Talk about false advertisement at it worst.After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care. Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.Don't see this movie : my rule. And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.


Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends."


A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10


I just have to say, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. I cannot even count the number of times I've seen it. I was already in love with John Travolta, but the first time the camera pans up his body after he's all clean-shaven looking beautiful for his first trip to Gilley's, I was in awe. Debra Winger, as always, delivers a perfect performance as the young, naive wife of Bud, but with the necessary attitude to be married to a stubborn and hard-working cowboy. If you're not a country music person, which I wasn't, this is 1 soundtrack that'll have you singing right along with every word. If you get a chance, please see this movie-it won't disappoint.


okay, but just plain dumb. Not bad for a horror/comedy film. I was reading how people switched it with the Michael version and that is a good trick in my opinion because some grown ups hate horrors and when they see this one it will get them interested in horror films like this one or maybe (never seen it) the horror (possibly comedy) uncle Sam, i'll have to see about renting or buying that film but the 2nd is way better then this one but i bought this one on VHS of Amazon and got it November 21, the day before thanksgiving. worth the four bucks, l.o.l. at this film.9/10


Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.


What a terrible film. It sucked. It was terrible. I don't know what to say about this film but DinoCrap, which I stole from some reviewer with a nail up his ass. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sigh.. It's not Roger Corman that I hate, it's this god-awful movie. Well, really? But what can you expect from a movie with Homoeric computer graphics. Which is another thing, the CGI sucked out loud; I hate this movie dreadfully. This is without a doubt the worst Roger Corman B-Movie, and probably the gayest B-Movie too. It's-it's--- DINOCRAP! I'm sorry, I must have offended some nerds in these moments. It's just an awful movie... 0/1,000


Probably the best film of the year for me. This small French film centers on put upon office secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) who spends her days doing other men's jobs, uncredited, and being the source of their scorn and lunchtime conversation which is all too clear to her as, being partially deaf, she reads lips. A change is set in motion when she hires newly paroled con Paul (Vincent Cassel) as her assistant. The relationship which develops between them is the centre of the film. Mutual dependency, for vastly different reasons, bonds them. Carla becomes attracted to Paul and to the fact that he makes her feel attractive for,what seems like,the first time. Paul does nothing to dispel her feelings because he needs her help. He owes money to a local gangster and forms a plan to steal from him which will involve Carlas' skill of reading lips. I think the main thing that pushes the film way above an average suspense/drama is the amazing chemistry between the two stars. Throughout the whole film, no matter what other characters are on screen, you can feel this amazing bond between Carla and Paul. I cannot remember when I have witnessed such sexual chemistry between two actors. Emmanuell Devos gives a brilliant performance (she won the French Cesar for best actress). You never feel like you are watching a piece of acting, this really is Carla. The chameleon like Vincent Cassel is also wonderful. He makes a somewhat unappealing character both appealing and attractive. I loved this film because of these two people, and both times when I had finished watching it I wanted to go back into the cinema and become involved with them all over again.


This afternoon we took the kids to the movies and saw Neil Gaimans Stardust and all I can say is Wow.It is rare that I am completely taken aback by anything but this is quite possibly the greatest fantasy movie I have ever seen, maybe even the best movie of any kind and it is all Neil Gaiman's fault.Sure, I could have been sucked in by the wonderful dialog which was smart, flowed smoothly,and made the characters completely believable.I could go on for days about the spectacular acting, Charlie Cox is perfect as Tristan, Claire Daines is Brilliant as Yvaine, and Robert Di Nero almost steals the movie as the Deeply in the Closet Pirate Captian Shakespeare.The pure joy brought about by the humor which managed to be Laugh our Loud funny, Intelligent enough to make the first Shrek look like an 80's Sitcom, and blend in perfectly with the rest of the movie alone would have made this a great movie.Special Effects were near perfect, true this was no LOTR or Star Wars SF Extravaganza but where they were use they were exactly what was called for, not too much to distract you from the movie itself and blended into the story perfectly.Then there is the story? What can I say. How often do you come across a story containing all of the classic fairytale formula components that doesn't just come off as another cheap Princess Bride knockoff. It manages to be Familiar and comfortable and yet completely new and refreshing at the same time.Any one of those things would have made this a good movie, all of them combined make it a great movie but they pale in comparison to the rich enchanting world that those elements combine to bring to life well. Once again Neil Gaiman has done it, he has driven another dagger into my heart by creating a world of fantasy that is so beautiful and enchanting that I would do almost anything to live in it and only given me a short glimpse into it. I didn't want it to end, I wanted to be sucked through a vortex to the land of Stormhold and get to meet Tristan and Yvaine in person, to travel it's fields and valleys, Stroll through it's marketplaces and meet it's residents both dangerous and friendly and stay there forever. It is a feeling that I have noticed whenever I have read anything by Gaiman, The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline all left me with a deep sense of sadness when I finished reading them because it was over, I could not see anything more into the worlds he had created which seemed to be so much more vibrant and alive than the one I am forced to live in and watching Stardust was no different.In the end I'm sure that Neil's writing and this movie won't have the same effect on everyone but trust me when I say you will not regret the time or money spent watching this movie, it is easily one of the top 5 movies I have ever seen and I can guarantee that anyone at all with a soul will at least like it.


To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day. Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such. But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".


This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in "Spiderman 2." My evaluation: 9 out of 10.


Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.


You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.


In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, "Magnum Force", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, "The Enforcer" was grittier again, and was promoted as "the dirtiest Harry of them all". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own "Sudden Impact", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... "Sudden Impact" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the "Man With No Name" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. "Sudden Impact" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western "Hang 'Em High" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous "Do You Feel Lucky?" scene in "Dirty Harry" and the black militant leader in "The Enforcer" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall "Sudden Impact" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all "Dirty Harry" films, (though "The Dead Pool" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10


I don't know if this is a sitcom or not, but I agree that this is one of the greatest television shows ever. It's great that this show still airs. And I love Michelle. It's cute on the episodes when she was a baby and she talked, and she sometimes said something funny. Aw.This show can relate to children and teens and.. well, families as they struggle through rough times and try to work it out as a family. I don't know who would ever turn down an opportunity to watch this show with someone. I love the episode when I think her name is DD.. the older girl accidentally stole a sweatshirt, and she learned a lesson about stealing. That was a great episode. An example that this TV show shows the family working things out as a family.I recommend this show for everyone.


This was the third Muppet movie and the last one Jim Henson was around to take part in the making of before his premature death in 1990. The first three films starring the famous characters were all made and released into theatres before I was born. I originally saw the first and second installments in the original trilogy, "The Muppet Movie" and "The Great Muppet Caper", around the mid-nineties, as a kid, but didn't see this third one, "The Muppets Take Manhattan", until April 2007. This was shortly after I had seen its two predecessors and 1996's "Muppet Treasure Island" for the first time in many years. This third Muppet movie definitely didn't disappoint me the first time I saw it, and my second viewing nearly three years later may not have impressed me as much, but if not, it certainly didn't go too far downhill.The Muppets' stage musical, "Manhattan Melodies", turns out to be a big hit on their college campus. They are graduating from college, so they will soon be leaving, but decide they will all stay together and go to Manhattan to try and get their show on Broadway. After their arrival, they begin searching for a producer, but after many rejections, they finally decide to part and go find jobs. Most of them leave town, but Kermit stays, and is still determined to find the right producer and reunite the Muppet gang. He gets a job at a New York restaurant owned by a man named Pete. The frog quickly befriends Pete's daughter, Jenny, an aspiring fashion designer who currently works at her father's restaurant as a waitress. As Kermit continues his attempts to reach stardom, now with the help of Jenny, he doesn't know that Miss Piggy has secretly stayed in New York and is now spying on him. She begins to see Kermit and Jenny together, and to her it looks like they're getting close, which leads to jealousy! When I saw this movie for the second time, it looked disappointing at first. It seemed a little rushed, unfocused, and maybe even forgettable around the beginning. There are some funny bits during this part of the film, such as Animal chasing a woman through the audience on the college campus, but for a little while, the film seemed bland to me compared to its two predecessors. Fortunately, it wasn't long before that changed. The film is entertaining for the most part, with "Saying Goodbye", the poignant song the Muppets sing as they part, and a lot that happens after that. The two funniest parts MIGHT be Miss Piggy's tantrums after she sees Kermit and Jenny hugging, but there were definitely many other times when I laughed, such as poor Fozzie trying to hibernate with other bears. The Muppets still have their charm and comical antics, which obviously also helps carry the movie for the most part, as does the plot, a simple but intriguing one for all ages. There are some weaker moments, such as the Muppet babies sequence, and Juliana Donald's performance as Jenny is lacklustre, but neither of these problems are too significant, and are far from enough to ruin the entire experience.I would say "The Muppet Movie", the film that started the franchise in 1979, is the best of the original trilogy, and that seems to be the most popular opinion. This third film is probably the weakest of the three, but all of them are good. Unlike "Muppets From Space", the third of the theatrical films in the franchise made after Henson's sad passing, at least "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is still the Muppets! I won't go into details about what I think of the Muppets' 1999 film, released twenty years after their first one, since I've already explained in my review of it why I found it so disappointing, and even though it does have some appeal, I'm clearly not alone. However, every theatrical movie starring the lovable Muppets that was made during Henson's life is good entertainment for the whole family, even if the second and third installment each showed a slight decline in quality after the one that directly preceded it.


while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...


I have a deep liking for this film despite it appearing deliberately less 'polished' than the other Fred and Ginger films, not to mention the slightly problematic casting of Harriet Hillard in the lead romantic role. Once again with these films, the plot is of a minor consequence - Astaire plays a rather unlikely sailor (who happens to be a brilliant former hoofer (of course!)) and Rogers an aspiring performer in a seedy dime-a-dance music hall. Although their relationship is bright and fun to watch, they are bogged down by an un-involving main story of Hilliard and Randolph Scott not succeeding in finding any chemistry between them. Although it was a last minute decision, Hilliard was rather miscast in this as she doesn't have the screen presence to give this film what it needs despite being sweet and likable throughout. The film may have benefited in promoting Lucille Ball's wise-cracking worldy brassy character to a larger role as she simply shined in every small scene, and would have made a great Helen Broderick-type side-kick to Rogers in this kind of bright film (See 'Stage Door', made the following year, for an example of wonderful scenes between these two fantastic actresses). That Scott's one-dimensional Neanderthal character eventually falls in love with Hilliard's is even harder to believe than Astaire being in the Navy! Now onto the important part, the singing and dancing: Nothing more can be said about "Let's Face the Music and Dance" other than it is brilliant and moving and perfectly executed and I often finish watching that scene with tears in my eyes. However other songs in the film deserve some recognition as well; "I'm putting all my Eggs in One Basket" is a lovely example of the comedic instincts of Astaire and Rogers, and almost pokes fun at their reputation of bursting into spontaneous, perfectly synchronized dancing. Other highlights are "I'd Rather Lead the Band" and "Let Yourself Go" which show how these two talents could perform as brilliantly alone as together. I nearly forgot to mention that this is one of the few (if not the only) time we see Astaire brilliantly play on the piano; It seems this man's talents were endless!Overall, I actually prefer this to 'Top Hat' and 'Swing Time' (although only just), as it is more earthy and performed so enthusiastically by all involved, it is hard to dislike the fun factor.


A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it! The plot just barely dodges being called "corny". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy.


I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.


Leslie Charteris' series of novels of the adventures of the slightly shady Simon Templar ("The Saint") was brought to the screen in the late 1930s with the up and coming George Sanders as Templar. It was a careful choice - Sanders usually would play villains with occasional "nice roles" (ffoliott in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE, the title hero in THE STRANGE CASE OF UNCLE HARRY, the framed "best friend" of Robert Montgomery in RAGE IN HEAVEN). Here his willingness to bend the rules and break a law briefly fit his "heavy persona", while his good looks and suave behavior made Templar a fit shady hero like Chester Morris' "Boston Blackie", and (to an extent) Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto". The films are not the best series of movie mystery serials - but they are serviceable. Like Rathbone's Holmes series or Oland's Chan's series the show frequently had actors repeating roles or playing new ones (the anti-heroine in the film here was played by Wendy Barrie, who would show up in a second film in the series). This, and slightly familiar movie sets make the series a comfortable experience for the viewers, who hear the buzz of the dialog (always showing Sanders' braininess in keeping one step ahead of the bad guys), without noting the obvious defects of the plot. All these mysteries have defects due to the fact that even the best writers of the genre can't avoid repeating old ideas again and again and again.Here the moment when that happened was when one of the cast admitted his affection for Barrie, which she was long aware of. Shortly after he tries to protect her from the police. But as the film dealt with the identity of a criminal mastermind, it became obvious that this person was made so slightly noble as to merit being the mysterious mastermind (i.e., the script disguised him as the least likely suspect).Barrie is after the proof that her father (who died in prison) was framed by the real criminals in a robbery gang. She has several people assisting her - mugs like William Gargan - and she gets advice from the mastermind on planning embarrassing burglaries that can't be pinned on her. The D.A. who got her father convicted (Jerome Cowan) is determined to get Barrie and her gang. The only detective who seems to have a chance to solve the case is Jonathan Hale, who is shadowing Sanders but reluctantly working with him. The cast has some nice moments in the script - Hale (currently on a special diet) is tempted to eat a rich lobster dinner made for Sanders by Willie Best. He gets a serious upset stomach as a result, enabling Sanders and Barrie to flee Sanders' apartment. Best has to remind him (when he feels better) to head for a location that Sanders told him to go to at a certain time.There is also an interesting role for Gilbert Emery. Usually playing decent people (like the brow-beaten husband in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) he plays a socially prominent weakling here - whose demise is reminiscent of that of a character in a Bogart movie.On the whole a well made film for the second half of a movie house billing in 1939. It will entertain you even if it does not remain in your memory.


The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.


As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.GFT, Amazon Reviewer


Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.


I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of this two parter, The Impossible Planet, and was slightly worried that the second part wouldn't hold up quite so well as has been true in the past of the two parters of the past 2 Who series. But thankfully my fears were unfounded as I found myself enjoying this episode as much as the previous one. Anyway we start off with the surviving crew members on the run from the Ood, whom have become the Devil's pawn. There is also a bit of philosophizing on the Doctor's part in the episode that I quite enjoyed. Needless to say it was a good solid Doctor Who story. Might be a tad too intense for the younger viewers though.My Grade: B+


This movie is so bad that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the writers, producers and director? How on earth did they get funding for this abomination? The plot is laughable, the acting is poor at best, the story... What story? The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps repeating itself until you want to turn it off.I guess I'm the biggest looser for not turning this stupid movie off after the first minute.*** SPOLER ALERT ***I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 30 seconds...I give it 1 out of 10 because it's the lowest grade IMDb has to offer.Do yourself a favour: See an Uwe Boll movie instead... twice... it's more worthy of your time.


As a cinema fan White Noise was an utter disappointment, as a filmmaker the cinematography was pretty good, nicely lit, good camera work, reasonable direction. But as a film it just seamed as predictable as all the other 'so called' horror movies that the market has recently been flooded with. Although it did have a little bit of the 'chill factor' the whole concept of the E.V.O (Electronic Voice Phenomena) did'not seem believable. This movie did not explain the reasonings for certain occurrences but went ahead with them. The acting was far from mind blowing the main character portrayed no emotion, like many recent thriller/horror movies.Definitely not a movie I will be buying on DVD and would not recommend anyone rushes out to see it.


Where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk, evil doctors perform their experiments, madmen hold the ultimate karate championship, and the uber-rich hunt humans for sport? I had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there, but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location, you'd have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. It always winds up feeling so damned convenient and I immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. Hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands, so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began.The island in this movie used to belong to Dr. Moreau, but has recently been purchased by the Re-Animator himself, Jeffrey Combs. Old Jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research, which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. If that sounds familiar, that's because this is roughly the same basic set-up as the smart shark facility in Deep Blue Sea, not to mention a host of other Nu Image movies. So apparently, Jeffrey's son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. He did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth, turning his son into a shark-man.William Forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor's experiments. If someone would have given him a sailor's hat, William would have been a dead ringer for the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. In typical Bond Villain fashion, the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. Not chums, like buddies... chum, like shark food. So enter shark-boy who starts stalking the Skipper and his cohorts all over the island. They, of course, make half-hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark-man suit. The movie didn't make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. It's funny that this movie is called Hammerhead, it made me think of an old joke. Why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when you stop. That's pretty much how this movie is. The only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it's over.


Really, really bad slasher movie. A psychotic person escapes from an asylum. Three years later he kills a sociology professor, end of scene. One semester yesterday later (hey, that's what the title card said) a new sociology professor is at the school. She makes friends with another female sociology professor who works there, and starts dating another professor. The students are all bored, as are we.There are a number of title cards indicating how much time has passed. Scenes are pretty short, and cut to different characters somewhere else, making for little progression of any kind. A lot of scenes involve characters walking and talking, or sitting and talking, and serve little purpose. Despite the passage of time, many of the characters are always wearing the same clothing. Sometimes the unclear passage of time means when we see a body for the second time, we ask ourselves: how long has that body been there? And also, at least one of the dead people don't seem to have been missed by others.The killer manages to kill one person by stabbing her in the breast, another by stabbing him in the crotch, and another by slicing her forehead. Is his knife poisoned or something?The video box cover has a cheerleader: there aren't any in the movie. The rear cover has a photo of someone in a graduation cap and gown menacing a group of women in a dorm room. The central redhead in the photo is in the movie, but nobody ever wears such an outfit, and there is no such scene. The killer is strictly one-on-one.


This is truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made.


people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film.


When I first watched the show, the first few episodes seemed promising. Bill Compton introduced himself as the stereotypical "mysterious" vampire and Sookie presented herself as an independent woman. However, the show went downhill from here and the once interesting characters are as entertaining as a cardboard box.As the story progresses the main characters lose their original personalities, along with their acting abilities. By episode 5, Bill's furrowed eyebrows are so low that his face just consists of a forehead. Sookie, or rather the actress, is even more dead than her vampire lover. All these tragic events are surrounding her and she only reacts to how enjoyable it was losing her virginity. Personally, I think they made the main characters sleep with each other too early in the show. The way they teased each other was something that had me hooked and could easily be toyed with a bit more. As soon as Sookie loses it she struts around like a total ditz, only thinking of Bill's libido and the size of his appendage. Bill also loses his debonair attitude and well, he just gets plain silly. His actions are never really explained except he does it for Sookie. Why? Their love for each other is never delved into, if there is any love. So far it just seems to be sex that is the core of their relationship.Yeah, yeah, vampires usually equal sex but come on. Every five seconds I see some sort of humping going on. It wasn't that much of a surprise, since HBO always tries to pass of a soft core porno as a decent TV show. Bill popping out of the dirt and just getting it on with Sookie with no reason what's so ever? I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.The plot is just a stream of consciousness. The characters never go into detail about anything. All the events that happen are usually left unexplained. The only thing that is constant is the sex.The only thing I can say that I do like are the minor characters. Tara and her drunk mother are far more interesting than the major characters. The only reason why I continue to watch the show is for the development of the minor characters. Minus the sex and the main characters the show would be much more worthwhile.


Play Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien II.


I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.


Terry Gilliam's fantastic, twisted story of a virus destroying all but a handful of people across the Earth and forcing them to move underground and the man sent back in time to gather information about it is a fantastic, dizzying, and highly stylized film that boasts Bruce Willis' best performance ever.What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel sci-fi movies is that Bruce Willis character actually deals with what the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actual reality: the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a tautly written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.Visually, Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivalling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colorless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness characters.Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a patented loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false 'religion.'Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness. Ranking in my top 10 of all time, 12 Monkeys is a darkly lavish spectacle of a film brimming with brilliance.10 out of 10


This is one of Disney's top five animated features, in my opinion. Cinderella was a perfect return to the full-length feature animation film (as opposed to the compilation films of the 40's), and expensive depth via the multi-plane camera returns to the film in no other way. Although Disney adapts the story somewhat liberally, you gather the idea of the era via the dress and set stylizations---a clear time period the story takes place.Cinderella is more mature than Snow White, and a multi-dimensional character. Actually, all of the characters are somewhat well-developed, except for the Prince--left the most flat--we know he has a sense of humor, and a great smile, but that's about all. Like Snow White, Disney has some permanent impact on the story in popular culture---in most versions of Cinderella, the stepsisters are attractive, just not as pretty as Cinderella, and their character takes away from their otherwise nice appearance.Favorite Disney additions: the mice! Also, appreciated the continuity--Cinderella always loses her shoe throughout the film. The addition of the homemade gown as well as the following assault from the stepsisters was always horrific as a child--I remember View Master showing this with a black background and a large red light on it! The broken slipper shows the unwillingness of evil Lady Tremaine to give up her hold over Cinderella and admit defeat---Audley would go on to characterize the most wicked of all Disney villains, satanic witch Maleficent, in Sleeping Beauty.


This movie is banned in just about every foreign country I can think of. The Japanese people (?) who star in this must have been really desperate for a job, or we're just friends. Here's the scoop:Three thugs torture the hell out of a helpless woman, they use all kinds of things to eventually kill her, they burn her, kick her, spin here around in a chair (over 200 times!), they use sound torture (by forcing her to listen to a static sound for over 20 hours! It don't sound that bad at all, but it CAN make you go nuts). They throw guts (probably from an animal) at her while shes knocked out, and she freaks when she wakes up. And who can forget the grande finale the GREATEST EYEBALL TORTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN!If you have not heard of these films, and watch one without knowing that it is a simulated snuff film, you will think it is! (just ask Charlie Sheen) This is guaranteed to freak people out and make some sick! Like I said pure underground. Check it out if you are a fan of underground horror, or foreign gore. If your not I highly recommend you read-up on the series before watching! From the gore, shock, and creativity aspect it gets a 10, but from the storyline and all that stuff it is a 1. An underground classic...My final rating is a 8/10


I think the weighted average for this film is too low. I give it a 7. Very entertaining, although over the top in a few places. My wife says it passes the Danielle Steele test. Superb performances throughout, particularly by Andie MacDowell.


I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat!


this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.


Rod Serling was, of course, a genius and his wonderful, playful, creative mind left something of the period in which he lived and examples of television at that state of development. There are no such shows now, but rather "Housewife" sluts ala Eva Longoria or Terri Hatcher, or the pitiful stabs at humor and witty banter that litter our high-tech screens.Jack Elam edged into the episode with such acting precision and with his usual craziness that I can't help but think that Rod Serling was tailoring that long ago week's show around Elam, even though he was an ancillary to the flow of the story. This episode ends with a twist, as usual, but shock and humor are mixed with especially "Serlingesque" dexterity.Rex Lewis Field


Whether it's three guys in their tighty-whiteys rapping to a dude bound in twine or a girl saying "What up, dog?" to a lump of roadkill, there's something please everyone in Knuckleface Jones. It is strange and surreal and not altogether a completely comprehensible yarn... yet it never loses you. The first time I saw it, I nearly laughed myself sick. And every night after I would come home and watch it again. Forget Coyote Ugly... this is the movie that cemented my crush on Piper Perabo. See it... before it's too late!


This is a wonderful movie about the struggle of the Mormons and their final settlement in Salt Lake, Utah. The beginning and the ending are especially powerful, and the message is one we all have to be reminded of - God doesn't talk, but he communicates, if we would only listen. As I am writing this in the midst of the horrors going on in New Orleans and the surrounding area due to Katrina, I was especially moved by the Mormons having to leave everything behind and move on after Joseph Smith was assassinated. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and yet they could not. The struggle of the Mormons to cross the country, the cost in lives, the hardship they suffered was truly awe-inspiring, demonstrating their tremendous strength. As far as the actual beliefs of Mormons, this is not heavily gone into, and polygamy is mentioned but is not a centerpiece of the film at all.The cast is top-notch, though others who have commented know more about the actual characters and can talk about how true the portrayals were. But as actors, Dean Jagger, Mary Astor, Brian Donlevy, John Carradine, Jane Darwell all do excellently with the script they were given.Though the film could have easily stood on its own (and certainly does today) Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell were added to the cast to get the crowds into the movie theaters to see a film about the Mormons. Power is magnificently handsome as a young Mormon, and Darnell, as Zina, is not a Mormon but stays on with the family after her father is killed. Power does not have much to do until the end of the film, when he has a big scene, and Darnell (still a teenager at the time of the filming) has even less, though they make a lovely couple. Their fate is left unclear regarding her conversion, and one does wonder about the polygamy in their case. You can't beat either one for eye candy, however.


This film is a stunning piece that will convince even the most skeptical viewer that Gerard Depardieu is one of the finest film actors of the last 50 years. His performance shocks, entertains, disgusts and charms you while leaving you breathless. This film was shot in the very early days of his film career and is very raw, but still is able to convey the mastery of Depardieu. A must-see for any Depardieu fan and by far his best early work.


Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.


Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film!


Shirley MacLaine in another tailor-made role. As the aunt to a single mom in a 1962 working-class Chicago neighborhood, the veteran character actress gets another work-out as a gutsy woman who won't let any set-backs defeat her spirit of success. The children, a pre-teen boy and girl, are drawn to their spirited Aunt Zoe, although the many magic tricks and practical jokes learned from her, and applied at all the wrong opportunities eventually get them expelled from school.The plot is cleverly enveloped in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with all of the social implications. Men building bomb shelters, people watching news programs on what seemed to be the only TV set, at a diner, and a general mist of uneasiness and fear in the air. When a "harmless" miracle is blown out of proportions, the climactic conclusion nonetheless makes the viewer feel good. Yes, Virginia, the sun will come up tomorrow! Clearly a small-budget production, this is still a sweet little film, filled with the magic that Sunday Matinees were made of. With a few choice "Oldies" thrown into an effective Sound Track, the whole family is sure to enjoy this one.****


I am so glad that i got a chance to see this rare little gem of a movie. I saw it at an independent film festival, so don't expect it to come to your town anytime soon. During the film, i noticed about 10 people get up and walk out. Too bad for them (down here in the south, folks don't like having to read subtitles). The movie starts out slow, but is so rich in dialogue that i never felt bored. When the action finally arrives, i found myself glued to the screen as if i were riding a roller coaster.I also got a big kick of the Chapter Titles appearing before the chapters, especially the ones that introduce the characters as they appear on screen. It reminded me of Zelda (Ocarina of Time) when you face level bosses.If this is the future of "video game/comic book" movies, then i welcome it.


Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.


I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? "Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well." Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films.


With the advent of the IMDb, this overlooked movie can now find an interested audience. Why? Because users here who do a search on two-time Academy Award winner Glenda Jackson can find 'The Return of The Soldier' among her credits. So can those checking out Oscar winner Julie Christie. Fans of Ann-Margret can give the title a click, as will those looking into the career of the great Alan Bates. Not to mention the added bonus of a movie with supporting heavyweights Ian Holm and Frank Finlay. Any movie with so many notables in it is rewarded by the IMDb, given all the cross-referencing that goes on here. So, why isn't this movie out on DVD? Don't the Producers realize the Internet Movie Database is a marketing gift for such a film? And 'The Return of The Soldier' is definitely a gem waiting to be discovered. Get with it, people.


Fräulein Doktor is as good a demonstration as any of how the once great film industry in Western Europe has declined in the past 40 years. Then, in the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy,France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline. There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime)and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan. And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor. With its big budget for the time, and the world talent involved, Fräulein Doktor was good enough that viewers still remember the movie decades later.Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, has a line in Fräulein Doktor where he tells a caught spy to either talk or he will play the Wall Game. The wall being opposite a firing squad, with little chance of the spy winning the game. That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders, in the Vietnam War era of 1969.The steamy scenes between Suzy Kendall and Capucine probably did not damage these performers' chances at getting parts in Hollywood movies, Hollywood studios were in the process of shedding their overseas distribution and production businesses. Fox would no longer co-produce films like The Sicilian Clan, Columbia wouldn't distribute films like Belmondo's The Night Caller. MGM went even further, cutting almost all film production, selling its chain of theaters in India for the value of the land underneath and unloading its Borehamwood studio facilty as Kerkorian looted the studio to raise money for building his casino in Las Vegas (where a Bally casino gift shop sold MGM memorabilia at giveaway prices, stuff left over from the auction of MGM's prop warehouses).Paramount distributed Fräulein Doktor, but Gulf and Western's Charles Bludhorn, who had taken over the company and canned the studio's aged Board of Directors, unloaded the studio's film library to Universal (as I recall) and really became interested in movies after production chief Robert Evans started turning out one hit after another. But that was in the 70s. Fräulein Doktor with its lesbian scene was buried, with cut versions of the movie showing up on local stations through the 80s.Kenneth More was usually typecast as a bumbling guy when he was older, especially in the BBC detective series Father Brown. When he was younger, as in the British movie Titanic, he played his standard reserved British officer. In Fräulein Doktor, he had a chance to be a lot tougher than usual, as I recall. It would be nice to see if my memory of this movie is accurate, about his role and, of course, those cavalry horses wearing gas masks and protective covers riding into battle. That was some scene, and Alberto Lattuada showed he was some director, helming this World War I espionage movie, where the money spent on production values really shows up on the screen.


I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book.


Beside the fact, that in all it's awesomeness this movie has risen beyond all my expectations, this masterpiece of cinema history portrait the overuse of crappy filters in it's best! Paul Johansson and Craig Sheffer show a brotherconflict with all there is to it. As usual a woman concieling her true intentions. The end came as surprising as unforssen as the killing of Keith Scott by his older brother.The scenes in 'wiking land' are just as I remember it from my early time travels. - To be honest my strong passion for trash movies makes this one a must have in my never finished collection.I recommend this movie to all the people in love with the most awesome brother cast from One Tree Hill.-Odin-


This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.


Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.


First of all, this movie is 34 minutes long, which means you could watch it three times in a row and still have spent less time than you would have watching most other movies. Second of all--you need to do this. This sensational short film explores the potential of animation through a world of playful or horrifying but always powerful images. Cats riding in and drinking out of a water elephant, a circus featuring a bird that has consumed the sky, and pigs eating their own fried flesh--that's only the beginning. The scenes and images, extraordinary on their own, flow together without obvious causal links in a way that demands re-watching. Furthermore, the DVD includes an amazing director's commentary, which, given the extremely spare dialog, only enhances the viewing. The commentary gives a few interpretations of scenes, but also provides priceless quotes on the crafting of Cat Soup, along the lines of: "well, the artists were asking what we should do in this scene, but I didn't know myself, so its hard to say why it turned out as it did" (that's a bad paraphrase by the way). Also, the sound throughout the film is very high quality, very precise, and very moody. In all, the absolute minimum viewing experience should go as follows:First viewing: Watch the DVD without the commentary. Second viewing: Watch the DVD WITH the commentary. Third viewing: Rewatch without the commentary.Once you've watched it three times, however, you're not going to stop there...


I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli. When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand. First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it. Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell. Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh? And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up. As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone "opens the path" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING. I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid.


Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.


Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original