In the aftermath of Watergate, a number of conspiracy movies appeared, such as this one, written by the late Adam Kennedy ( based on his novel ). Gene Hackman plays ex-Vietnam veteran 'Roy Tucker', a loser who has wound up in prison. He receives visits from Marvin Tagge ( Richard Widmark ), who claims to represent an organisation designed to assist the wrongly convicted. They offer him freedom, and despite distrusting Tagge he accepts. But he brings along a fellow cell mate by the name of Spiventa ( Mickey Rooney ). Exactly why is hard to see, as Spiventa is an irritating little man who drives Tucker mad with persistent talk of sex, not what you want to hear when you are behind bars.Tagge's benefactors kill Spiventa before Tucker's astonished eyes. Reunited with wife Ellie ( Candice Bergen ), and given a new identity ( strangely, he does not attempt to change his appearance. Shaving off that cheesy moustache would have been a start ), he settles down, but finds there is a catch - Tagge wants Tucker to do no less than assassinate the President of the United States. He refuses, so Tagge has Ellie abducted...I will leave the synopsis here, but I am sure you can guess the rest for yourself. The script has enough plot holes to make you want to read the book ( neat trick that! ). The people Tagge represents are never revealed. The allusions to J.F.K.'s killing are unmistakable. Despite the findings of The Warren Commission, the doubt as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone persists to this day.This was Stanley Kramer's first movie in years, and while no turkey, it lacks the grip of say John Frankenheimer's 'The Manchurian Candidate' or Alan J.Pakula's 'The Parallax View'. Being a left-wing conspiracy movie, it tends to skirt around its subject matter instead of getting to grips with it. I prefer right-wing ones myself - they are funnier! 'Domino' has the look and feel of a made-for-T.V. movie, and boasts what must be the easiest prison escape in movie history not to mention an ending copped from the Michael Caine classic 'Get Carter'.What makes it watchable are Gene Hackman and Richard Widmark. The latter, who sadly passed away earlier this year, is superb as the mysterious Tagge, who initially appears to be behind the operation until he too is ruthlessly eliminated, beginning a chain of deaths designed to remove all trace of evidence as one by one the perpetrators of this evil plot fall - just like dominoes. As Tucker, the innocent pawn, Hackman is marvellous. You have to wonder though why he chose to hide out in such an obvious place. In his shoes, I'd have fled to the other side of the world, anywhere to get away from these fanatics. Hackman's love scenes with Bergen slow the plot down, and it is almost a relief when she gets snatched. Presumably the producers thought so too, which explains why it opens with a bizarre prologue setting out the film's entire premise - voiced by British actor Patrick Allen - warning the audience that 'they' are out there, and that 'they' are out to get us. Comedian Les Dawson later spoofed this opening in his B.B.C. show 'The Dawson Watch'.Mickey Rooney had earlier worked with Kramer on 'Its A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'. His 'death' scene here resembles like an outtake from that picture, with the actor looking as though he has been stung by a wasp rather than shot dead.Conspiracy movies used to be only made by the left, but now the right are getting in on the act too. Last year, 'Taking Liberties', an absurd concoction of lies and half-truths about Tony Blair's Government turned out to be Britain's answer to 'Reefer Madness'. At least, 'Domino' had lovely Candice Bergen. The best Chris Atkins' film could offer was Anne Widdecombe!Surprisingly, 'The Domino Principle' was made by Sir Lew Grade, the legendary British television mogul behind 'The Saint', 'Jesus Of Nazareth' and 'The Muppet Show'. He worked with Adam Kennedy again in 1980 on 'Raise The Titanic!', whose failure was so great it sank Grade's ambitions of being the new Louis B.Meyer. Being somewhat open-minded, I would not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy.


I haven't laughed that much in a long time - although the movie has some sad moments too, especially when it changes from hyper-funny to honest and serious. The characters are very realistic most of the times, sappy sometimes, but quite believable. I am not a fan of the Jerry Springer show - I feel sorry for the participating people. This film instead is a satire, and it is doing great.Too bad that all expletives were *beeped* out while this movie aired on public tv, that takes a lot of fun out of it. I will go rent this movie to fully enjoy it.


The Sunshine Boys is a terrific comedy about two ex-vaudevillians who reluctantly reunite for a TV special despite the fact that they despise each other.The comic genius of two masters at work, George Burns and Walter Matthau are stellar! Some of the best scenes are when the duo is fighting over the silliest little trivial things! The material is fast-paced and witty, appealing to all ages.MILD SPOILER ALERT: There are some mildly sad moments toward the end of the movie that deal indirectly with the affects of aging that gives the film a soft, sincere, tenderness that shows to this reviewer that what the pair really need the most for success, are each other.If anyone loves The Odd Couple, you'll adore this movie. An excellent film!


Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.


So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!


Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.2 out of 10, kids.


There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.


If you have seen Dogtown and Z-Boys or have any interest in seeing the real, non-caricature, "Real American" side of America then Riding Giants will hit deeper than anything you've seen before.This film is "unreal", a facile term if ever there was one, but hugely appropriate if you can derive any form of literal meaning out of it - it is a 100% factual documentary, but with all the drama of an opera, and the completely apparent sense of love, expert and knowing instilled by Stacy Peralta's direction and narration, this film expertly leads you from swell to big wave while keeping you completely enthralled in everything you are being given the privilege of seeing.This film is a symphony, crafted as well as Beethovens 9th, beginning beautifully with its prelude in Hawaii, tugging deeply on human emotion in Santa Cruz and finishing with uproar, triumph and crescendo in Laird Hamiltons feats, again in Hawaii.Like classical music; like Beethoven's 9th, Ride of the Valkyries or Barbers Adagio for Strings, this may be the only piece you like, but it's worth it. Trust me.


Years ago I did follow a soap on TV. So I was curious about this movie, and I was so rewarded for finding it. It's a marvelous spoof of soaps, with jealousies, the usual actors' insecurities, and all sorts of lovely excesses. But more than anything - an amazing cast and an incredible script. How did someone get all those top-notch actors to play in such a silly sort of movie? And how did this little movie get writers to write the perfect lines? I never hear anyone talk about this movie or even admit hearing of it, but it's marvelous and I highly recommend seeing it. Sometimes I'll throw it on while doing housecleaning, and end up sitting on the couch, watching, laughing and thoroughly enjoying the whole wonderful thing. Many congrats to all who made it.


Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.


Expecting a combination of scifi and period film about Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, the history of computers, etc, I was disappointed by this movies nonsensical pseudoscience and mixture of real and fabulous history. It gives the impression that its writer (Lynn Hershman-Leeson) has no real understanding of the Math, technology, or history constituting the film's subject, but is working instead from a sort of fuzzy artistic impression of them. This hits a sore spot with me, as I've long been irritated by the tendency of the arts to glom onto and awfully misuse science terms and ideas to the point of confusion, eg: Emmy Coer: "information waves have a half-life", Ada: "I'm not at all certain that half a life is better than no life at all".This movie does worse than fail to entertain - it misinforms. The only redeeming value I can imagine for it is that it might attract a viewer to learn about the subject it so badly distorts. It's more likely, I think, to promote a superstitious perception of science and technology of any degree of advancement as indistinguishable from magic.


Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy. Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go. The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones. 7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.


Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937.


i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :)


Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.Let me tell you about my experience...The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet....I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge." Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.0/10


Pretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches "Dragon Fighter" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her again.


this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.


Spoilers? Maybe a few details, but nothing too plot related. Not like it would matter with this movie. Air Rage blatantly rips off the mid-air infiltration premise of Executive Decision. Ice-T leads a team of four "elite" commandos who wear baggy black shirts that we can only imagine must conceal invisible body armor as their idiotic tactics (similar to what 3rd graders use when playing Star Wars on the playground) lead them to absorb a hail of gunfire. What entertained me the most about this flick was the use of look-alike has-been actors. You'll immediately recognize Cyril O'Reily as someone who once acted in a movie that you really liked, though it was so long ago that you probably won't be able to place it (it was Porky's). Here Cyril plays a decent knock-off of a Bill Paxton character. Most Hilarious is porker Gil Gerard, who's so fat that you will never recognize him as TV's Buck Rogers. Instead of evoking his mildly heroic character past, Gerard gives us a passable performance of the crusty fat tough guy persona, which was clearly imagineered for John Goodman. Finally, Alex Cord gives us a nice hybrid look-alike performance as a Chuck Connors/Kirk Douglas type. In the 10 years since New Jack City, Ice-T's acting has deteriorated remarkably. It's not acting so much as regurgitation of lines that he might have actually memorized. One of the items that plays into this movie is a CD-ROM of classified information. It's being hand carried, and it's apparently and unbelievably not encrypted, despite the security-savvy aura of Gerard's NSA character. What a joke. I'm severely doubting that the information purported to be on the CD would ever even all be assembled into a portable format. Despite being in a closed aircraft without silencers, the gunfire is about as loud as canned air, and causes nary a person to flinch, so apparently no foley budget. The assortment of weapons chosen is pretty funny. The flight attendant's use of a coffee pot is about the most realistic depiction of violence in the film. When she takes intuitively to the mini-Uzi pistol, which has got to be one of the worst pistol designs ever, that's just too stupid. A true elite team would carry MP-5s for this type thing or maybe SOCOMM .45s, or even customized Hi- Powers if they were really old school, or maybe something FN 5.7 if new school... The lame-o standard issue 92Fs are totally unbelievable, having lost most of their cool after Lethal Weapon I. The bad guys, supposedly experienced soldier of fortune types, have an assorted mixture of absurdity, like the aforementioned mini-Uzi pistol and a Tec-9 with the infamous non-functional barrel extender that isn't a silencer. There was one touch of realism on which I would like to correct the other reviewers: The flight attendant and Ice-T did lower the craft to 10,000 feet for "breathable air" before they opened the door. And I also got the impression that the flight attendant was NOT able to get the door closed, that she basically just gave up on that point. As far as the landing, there was no mention of flaps until about 2 seconds before touchdown. Sigh. Only the Dukes of Hazard eluding Roscoe P. Coltrane at the "pass" could shame this movie for use of stock footage. They obviously chose the incredible (and retired) SR-71 because they couldn't get stock of an F-117. Aside from the fact that they were mothballed already in 2001, let's also forget for a moment that the SR-71 is not a pure stealth aircraft in the sense of the B-2, and that at point blank range... Well, I'm no expert, but I'm having doubts as to whether it would be invisible on Radar. As others have pointed out, the repeated references to "F-15s" when they were showing F -16s was laughable. Details of the 747 were pretty stupid. No airline would put that few passengers on a 747 to begin with, not to mention everything else that was idiotic about it. Pay attention to the use of exposed electrical wiring. Wow. What a show. Catch it on Stars or something. Don't pay to rent it, but do watch it for laughs. In contention for worst movie ever, right up there with No Holds Barred, which at least had some originality.


With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as "The Giant Monster Gamera" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But "Gammera the Invincible" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself."Gammera the Invincible" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.Most movies in the genre that "Gammera the Invincible" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.


One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the "Cake or Death" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the "Hitler/Pol Pot" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in.


Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either.


Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.


I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.What direction! What camera! What storytelling!


After watching "The Bodyguard" last night, I felt compelled to write a review of it.This could have been a pretty decent movie had it not been for the awful camera-work. It was beyond annoying. The angles were all wrong, it was impossible to see anything, especially during the fight sequences. The closeups were even horrible.The story has Sonny Chiba hiring himself out as a bodyguard to anyone willing to lead him to the top of a drug ring. He is approached by Judy Lee, who is never quite straight with Chiba. Lee's involvement in the drug ring is deeper than Chiba thought, as the Mob and another gang of thugs are after her.The story was decent, and despite horrible dubbing, this could have been a good movie. Given better direction and editing, I'm sure this would have been a classic Kung Foo movie. As it is, it's more like another cheesy 70's action movie.Note: The opening sequence has a quote familiar to "Pulp Fiction" fans, and then continues to a karate school in Times Square that is in no way related to the rest of the movie.Rating: 4 out of 10


A beautiful shopgirl in London is swept off her feet by a millionaire tea plantation owner and soon finds herself married and living with him at his villa in British Ceylon. Although based upon the book by Robert Standish, this initial set-up is highly reminiscent of Hitchock's "Rebecca", with leading lady Elizabeth Taylor clashing with the imposing chief of staff at the mansion and (almost immediately) her own husband, who is still under the thumb of his deceased-but-dominant father. Taylor, a last-minute substitute for an ailing Vivien Leigh, looks creamy-smooth in her high fashion wardrobe, and her performance is quite strong; however, once husband Peter Finch starts drinking heavily and barking orders at her, one might think her dedication to him rather masochistic (this feeling hampers the ending as well). Still, the film offers a heady lot for soap buffs: romantic drama, a bit of travelogue, interpretive dance, an elephant stampede, and a perfectly-timed outbreak of cholera! *** from ****


This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent. It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women. The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.


Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.Considering the following:Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.


Joe Don Baker is one of a handful of actors who is often better than his material, and almost always under appreciated. He's been in a ton of films either as a heavy or a hero, and has the type of strong, solid presence that Wallace Beery did half a century before him. Baker can delivery material that would sound ridiculous coming out of another actor, and that's what's so great about him. He really seems to mean what he's saying, regardless of how cliché, obvious or silly, which puts him in a league with Tommy Lee Jones, Oliver Reed and Don Stroud. It's what made the WALKING TALL Trilogy work so well, and that same magic is here in FINAL JUSTICE. This was a substantial hit in theaters and on video in the 80s, and it has aged a lot better than many of the perhaps better known action flicks of the era. By moving the action from Texas to Europe, there's a real timeless quality that doesn't jar you away from the action on screen. To be honest, I've always enjoyed the films of Greydon Clark, who is a no-nonsense director in the same vein as 1970s Clint Eastwood, and this is one of his best. FINAL JUSTICE is one of the lost gems of the late 80s, similar to MAN ON FIRE in its true grit and violence. I suppose if they remake this with The Rock, a whole new audience will come to love it as much as I do.


if you are like me then you will love this great coming of age teen movie.i think it is up there with mischief/book of love/high school USA/shout/calender girl/crybaby/ all great movies set in the lat 50s & early 60s and it has a wonderful soundtrack.not as many songs as in some of these type of movies but still great.it is all so very funny at times and has a great love interest.all the young cast are great.i wish there were more type of these wonderful movies.my favourite movie of all time is back to the future when Marty mcfly gos back to 1955 well in these wonderful movies it stays in the fab 50s(early 60s) there are some movies of this type better than this but not many.


OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...


Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing. Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer. Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon.


First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)


This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.


We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.


If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise  following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous  but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell  prominently featured on the DVD cover  appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.


It's hard to believe an "action" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow.


Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.


Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain. One of the best westerns ever.


Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. "Girlfriend" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.


I never seem to write a review on IMDb unless I am extremely surprised at how good, or how bad, a movie is. This film falls into the first category. Every year, I try to see all the nominees for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, even those that I know I won't like. "As It Is In Heaven" seems to fit the bill. The plot sounds sugary and sentimental and slow....For my tastes, which run more towards original, dark and/or daring foreign cinema (Michael Haneke, Francois Ozon, A lot of modern Japanese/Korean cinema) "As It Is In Heaven" does not sound particularly interesting....It didn't get released in the USA, so I sat down to watch a VCD I found in Singapore, preparing to "cross it off the list". After a dull beginning, "As It Is In Heaven" becomes that rare film where you really become inspired by what is happening on screen. Weak points: The characters in the film are pure "stock" characters- the Wounded Dreamer, the Town Bully, the Battered Wife, the Loose Woman Yearning for Love, the Repressed Minister....Thankfully, they're largely a likable bunch, as well as being well-written and well-acted. Ingela Olsson, as the minister's wife Inger, would have been nominated for an Oscar had her performance been in English. Strong points: the music is beautiful, and the main song, sung by Gabriella, is truly dramatic and memorable. And keep an eye out for the feisty 87-year old actress playing Olga, who is keeping up with the dancing steps as well as the younger ladies! I won't discuss the ending, but I will say that it makes sense. They're are a lot of emotional things happening in the last hour of the film, and you're not quite sure why they're happening. Although nothing is explained in words, it all makes sense as the movies comes to a fitting crescendo. **** out of *****. Probably the strongest Swedish movie I've ever seen.


I considered myself to be quite melancholy, especially when I watch a great touching and tear-jerking movies. But not for this one (which surprised me!) and it is also really surprising me to see how many people praised this movie so highly.There are several disturbing facts throughout the movies: 1. Despite guilt-ridden Ben's real intention to save 7 lives to redeem his past, I find it disturbing that the film seems encourage this type of suicidal action. Some people may perceive this is a heroic action and some others think he behaves cowardly, in the end this was a disturbing action to me.2. The movie story line is over-dramatized, but the logic is over-simplified. Medically, blood type match is required to be an organ donor. Toward the end of the film we learnt that Emily had rear blood type that limited her chance to get the donor within short time period. Nevertheless, it seemed that Ben had the rare blood type, same as hers which allowed him to be her donor and conveniently, despite the rarity of Ben's blood type, he was able to donate not only his heart, but also his kidney, his cornea and his bone marrow which in all cases require not only matching blood type but also tissue antigen.3. Why the doctors allow Ben's organs being donated despite the jellyfish venom he used to kill himself?I might be over-analyzing the whole story as after all this is just a movie. However, some disturbing facts outlined above hopefully will help you reconsider your plan to go to watch this movie. If you go for a soap-opera type of film, go for it. But it you go seeking for an intelligent entertainment, give this one a miss!


Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers  not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version  with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton  stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane  "poor, plain and little"  grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him  but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors  Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out  you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again.


A heartwarming film. The usual superb acting by John Thaw, who passed over recently. A man who was always so unassuming. He was one of Englands top 10 actors certainly of my time.He can be remembered for his famous role of Inspector Morse. As Jack Regan in the 1970's hit TV series 'the Sweeney and as a barrister in Kavanah QC. A must see for all the family and a great DVD for my collection. The filming will bring back a few memories for people who remember wartime Britain and certainly those who were evacuated out of London to escape the German bombings. The interaction between the two main characters.Tom and the boy William was really well acted and true to the book by Michelle Magorian.


The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team. My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.


I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film.


I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.


A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender  his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.


I thought it was an extremely clever film. I was very pleased with it and truly couldn't' ask for more. I actually own the film because I didn't return it to someone... Which I should do, but I really want to keep it due to how much I enjoyed it. Also, the fact I don't own too many foreign films and this is a first. Now, I personally love Finnish stuff so, that definitely added to how much I enjoyed it. But overall, its worth watching. However, if you're not into the whole trying to understand Finnish or read Subtitles bit, then this film is not for you.9/10 for sure.


More than twenty years before Peter Jackson's visionary adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, there was this 1978 animated effort from director Ralph Bakshi. An ambitious and reasonably faithful version of the story, this has sadly been rather over-shadowed by the Jackson trilogy. Indeed, many reviewers here on the IMDb (mainly those who saw the newer version first) seem to be fiercely unkind to this version.... but if one applies a little common sense, and takes into consideration the time when it was made and the technical possibilities that existed at that time, then they will realise that this is a pretty good film. Indeed, it was shortly after seeing this animated movie back in the early '80s that I sought out Tolkien's book and immediately became a lifelong fan of these richly detailed Middle Earth adventures. So, in some respects, I owe this film a degree of acknowledgement as the film which shaped my literary tastes forever.Sauron, the Dark Lord of Middle Earth, forges an all-powerful ring that gives him incredible power. Following a great battle during which Sauron is defeated, the ring falls into possession of a king named Isildur
. but instead of destroying it he foolishly chooses to keep it. For centuries the ring passes from hand to hand, eventually coming into the possession of a hobbit named Frodo Baggins who lives in a peace-loving community known as The Shire. Frodo learns from a wizard named Gandalf that his ring is in fact The One Ring, the very same that was forged by Sauron all those centuries ago, and that its master is once again searching for it in order to restore his dark power over the entire land. Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to protect the ring with three other hobbit companions, but every step of the way they are hunted by Sauron's ring-wraiths, the Black Riders. There follow many adventures, during which a company of nine adventurers is formed to guide the ring to the only place where it can be "unmade"  Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The film concludes with Frodo and his best friend Sam on the borders of Mordor, closing ever nearer to their horrifying destination. Meanwhile Gandalf and the other members of the company fight off a huge army of orcs at the legendary fortress of Helm's Deep.This version covers just over half of the original book. A second instalment was planned to bring the story to an end, but was sadly never completed. While the ending feels abrupt, it does at least end at a sensible point in the story. One has to feel a little frustration and regret that no sequel exists in which we might follow these animated heroes to their eventual goal. The animation is passable, with a nice variety of locales and characters presented in interesting detail. The music by Leonard Rosenman is suitably stirring and fits in appropriately with the epic narrative. The voice-overs are decent, too, especially John Hurt as Aragorn and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum. On the other hand, Michael Scholes - who provides the voice for Sam - is rather campy and goofy, which is not well suited to the character. The Lord Of The Rings is a commendable attempt to visualise the staggering book on which it is based.


Mina Kumari exhibits more style and grace just moving from standing, to sitting on the floor than you can find in most other movies. The director has produced more memorable scenes of touching beauty than it would seem possible. The music and dancing is of the highest possible quality. You may notice in the first dance scene the director has all sorts of things occurring in the background:other girl dancing, a drunk falling down stairs, much activity, but he knew that we would be watching Mina dance and I'll bet unless you viewed this many times, you didn't notice.All in all, perfection.J.Q.


Story of a good-for-nothing poet and a sidekick singer who puts his words to music. Director Danny Boyle has lost none of his predilection for raking in the gutter of humanity for characters but he has lost, in this film, the edge for creating inspiring and funny films. Strumpet is painful to watch and barely justified by the fact that it was made for TV.


Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.


Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts "I'm outta here" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, "my bad.") People address each other by rank -- "Lieutenant", "Boatswain's Mate," "Commander," as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple "Mister" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called "Senior Master Chief" in 1950.Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in "Animal House", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. "And just let life pass you by?", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. "Bombardier," "Airial Gunner," that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe "G. I. Jane", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in "The Young Lions." There the victim is a Jew. Or try "From Here to Eternity," in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like "Cool Hand Luke." No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.


I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got "Cult Status" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great.


An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence.


This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!


With rapid intercutting of scenes of insane people in an asylum, and montage/superimposition of images, and vague, interwoven narratives, this is a very hard movie to follow. Apparently a man (Masue Inoue) takes a job as a porter or janitor in an asylum so he can be near his imprisoned wife, and maybe to rescue her. But she's clearly mad, huddled on the floor, with a vacant expression much of the time and fear, misery, and confusion written on her face the rest of the time. The film-maker switches to her point of view sometimes, and we see vague images of her at the side of a pond drowning a baby, or clutching at a drowned child. She's tormented by something. When the point of view shifts to her or other mad folks, the filmmaker uses distorting lenses and such things, showing us what mad people see and then how they react. And the place is swarming with mad folks, laughing, hiding, and in one case dancing frenetically night and day. At one point the man tries to take his wife outside, but the night outside the door terrifies her and she runs back to her cell. Gradually the man slips into a nightmare in which he's interrupted in another attempt to steal her away, and he kills the doctor and many attendants, and all the while the mad folk laugh and applaud. When he wakes he is relieved, and mops the floor. Some fascinating shots of Japanes life, streets, buildings in the 1920s.


My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker.