Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars.


Batman Mystery of the Batwoman, is, in a word, stale. The plot goes that a mysterious female vigilante ("Batwoman") is intruding on Batman's turf, and while Batman is trying to combat a Penguin/Bane/Rupert Thorne threesome, he's trying to figure out who the mysterious Batwoman is. There is nothing strikingly wrong about this, but there is nothing really special about it either, noting really made it stick out. Mask of the Phantasm had Bruce's long lost love re surface and mess with his head.Subzero was a major event in the life of Mr Freeze. Even the Batman Beyond movie spin off, Return of the Joker, dug deep with the characters involved. But Mystery of the Batwoman had some minor subplots, a lot of formula topped off by a mediocre setpiece on a cruise boat. Frankly, this thing is more Scooby Doo than Dark Knight, lacking the punch and bite that the Animated Series had in it's prime.


Everyone has already commented on the cinematography (good to great), the personalities (larger than life), the structure (chronological, with many references to surf culture through time). What is missed is a bigger question of sociological importance: chucking mainstream American culture for something more fulfilling and rewarding.I was a surfer in the 1970s. We used to watch 16mm films at the local high schools in SoCal. I remember the great feeling of surfing all day until my skin radiated heat, putting on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and going to watch the latest surf film at night. Often, the narrator was the filmmaker himself, reading a script off sheets of paper. Sometimes, a surf band or proto-punk band would add music. I was never happier. Except for the hooting and hollering, seeing 'Riding Giants' took me back in time.IT also reinforced a feeling that living life on the edge, not worrying about the money and the climbing the social and corporate ladder, not keeping up with the Joneses, pushing yourself physically and mentally for a fleeting moment of joy and jubilation - may be the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" At least for those like Greg Noll, Laird Hamilton and the like, they seem to have found something that few of us are bold enough or honest with ourselves enough to pursue: to live life solely on our own terms. Maybe society would fall apart if we all did exactly what we wanted in life, but it is wonderful to see people who actually are living out their dreams.It was this message that really impressed me.


...I saw this on cable back in the late 1980's as I was a big wrestling fan since 1986. I saw this on VHS in a 'for sale' bin and bought it.In 1998, I started training as a wrestler after the Air Force and would always go back to watching this to see how it was a very accurate portrayal of people that are involved with wrestling ( families and friends that wouldn't understand us, the travel, the heartbreak, etc. ). Henry Winkler is funny and sometimes sad to watch as nobody else can understand what a genius he is creatively. A great way to separate himself The Fonz character he played on Happy Days at the time. Plus, look at the cast...William Daniels ( Knight Rider ), Polly Holiday ( Alice ), and wrestlers Roddy Piper and Chavo Guerrero Sr. If you get a chance, watch it.


This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.


Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.


Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well.


After Chicago, I was beginning to lose all respect for Richard Gere and then along came The Flock. There's just so far a nice smile and a couple of stock facial gestures can get you, but he proved to me that he's finally gotten hold of his craft and can act with the best of them. Clare Danes was also super as his "trainee/replacement". Some have suggested there was too much unnecessary violence, but I don't see it that way. Nothing I saw detracted from the power of this film. I was really shocked I hadn't heard of it being released in theaters and came across it at Blockbuster instead. Really an exceptional film with just the right blend of action, suspense, thrills, and social consciousness. As good as 7even? Well, maybe. And you'll see better acting out of Gere than anyone's ever gotten out of Pitt.


This film is a true and historical film. It is very useful to those researching the LDS church, because it is 100% true. It is an excellent film and I recommend it.It is very factual, exciting, and motivational. There are some who think it is not factual, but it is.It is about the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and about the prophet, Joseph Smith, who restored it. It has such events in his life as the disease that he had when he was a small boy, his courting Emma Smith, Emma, his wife, giving birth, and so on. But most importantly it reveals the restoration of the church.


it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D


...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.Just fantastic.


I voted excellent for how well the acting was, not for the content. It still gives me chills after reading the book, then watching the movie. Two ex-cons are traveling to their destination to rob a family of money from a safe one of the cons learned about while in prison. During the ride, the tension begins to mount, as the soundtrack in the movie adds to the overall anticipation. After the killers are done with their work at the farm, the following morning the family's remains are found by the daughter's church friend. The blood-curdling scream, as the scene pans onto the telephone with the cut cord, really made my blood run cold and gave me chills. That the killers met their just fates is a small comfort for this doomed family. Robert Blake was excellent in his portrayal of Perry Smith. The book was also excellently written by Truman Capote.


This movie's origins are a mystery to me, as I only know as much as IMDB did before I rented it. I assume that before "Starship Troopers", "Killshot" was one of the countless unaired pilots that never made it to network, cable, or otherwise. The new title of "Kill Shot" is comically thrown into the opening sequence, the first of many quick clues that this was not ever intended for the cinema. The quick cuts, cheesy "Melrose Place" music, and short 2-second close-up candid shots of the main actors let you know what you're in for.And I don't mind at all. I rented this movie seeing the repackaging that puts Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards on the cover in front of a volleyball net thinking it would be funny to see them in a movie besides the SciFi travesty of Starship Troopers (an excellent book, in my opinion, not so hot a movie - but that's another review). After looking it up on IMDB, my roommate and I surmised that the pilot was dragged up after the apparent success of Troopers and Richards own career (see Bond-Girl and Wild Things references here). They threw in a sex scene involving a minor character to reach the coveted R-rated status - coveted in suspense Video Rental sections, that is. In any event, they should have left it unrated if you're trying to sell it in the suspense/softcore porn section.All in all, it's entertaining. I hate to spoil the fun of telling you it's a TV pilot, though. That was the biggest pull while watching it - when you expect a cinematic movie and get a TV show, the differences between them make themselves more clear than usual.Would I rent it again? No. Would I watch this TV show? Well, why not - it's better than Baywatch. And their meager attempts at hitting all demographics would have done well back in the mid 90s. Token black guy (who's gay to avoid the TV taboo of inter-racial dating), token Asian (Japanese, I assume from the name Koji) more adept at science and computers than talking to women, beautiful, intelligent Latina pre-med student who has everything going for her except her family's bank account - this show probably would have done ok.But as a movie it just cracks me.I gave it a 7 out of 10, considering what it was and what it was forced to become. It made for a very enjoyable evening, and that's all I ask of rentals.


I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.


I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man


"Who Loves The Sun" works its way through some prickly subject matter with enough wit and grace to keep the story not only engaging, but often hilarious. It's been a while since I've found such a thoroughly touching, thoroughly enjoyable film. The film is gorgeous, drawing the eye with beautiful scenery and tranquil landscapes. The peaceful imagery contrasts wonderfully with the tension between the very human, very flawed, and yet very likable characters. Due to the excellent cast all five of the major players are wonderfully interesting and dynamic. I recommend "Who Loves The Sun." It's a really funny movie that takes a poignant look at the hurts that we can inflict on each other, and the amazingly difficult but equally rewarding process of forgiveness.


One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.Terrific songs include "Let Yourself Go," "Let's Face the Music," and "Putting All My Eggs in One Basket." The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings "Let Yourself Go" with Grable among the backup singers.Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. "Get Thee Behind Me" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings "But Where Are You?" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with "Let Yourself Go".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.Fun all the way, although I got tired of "We Joined the Navy" after the third time....


The first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs.
 The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased.


Let me begin by saying I am a big fantasy fan. However, this film is not for me. Many far-fetched arguments are trying to support this film's claim that dragons possibly ever existed. The film mentions connections in different stories from different countries, but fails to investigate them more thoroughly, which could have given the film some credibility. The film uses (nice!) CGI to tell us a narrated fantasy story on a young dragon's life. This is combined with popular-TV-show-CSI-style flash-forwards to make it look like something scientific, which it is definitely not. In many cases the arguments/clues are far-fetched. In some cases, clues used to show dragons possibly existed, or flew, or spit fire are simply invalid. To see this just makes me get cramp in my toes. Even a fantasy film needs some degree of reality in it, but this one just doesn't have it. Bottom line: it's a pretentious fantasy-CSI documentary, not worth watching.


The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.


This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: "Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does..." Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk. The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it..." ...and I ended up just loving it!


This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.


I like this film a lot. It has a wonderful chemistry between the actors and tells a story that is pretty universal, the story of the prodigal son. The aspect I like the best however was the way that the bath house was more than just a background for the story. As the father told the son the story of his wife's family in the northern deserts of china, the element of water and bathing becomes an almost sacred ritual. Water was so scarce that a simple bath had profound depth and meaning.Overall the film was very effective. There were moments, however, when it verged on "too" sweet...bordering on cloying during the park recital scene. But overall, I highly recommend this film.


An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing.


Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money.


SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone.


I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'.


"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark


Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution
 yes you guessed it right, again
. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you.


I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was "cool" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job.


Holy @#%& this movie was still warm and juicy from the pile it was made with. I tried to watch this pile of festering waste but found it easier to slash my wrists and slug back a shooter of Lysol floor cleaner than endure more than half of the crap that was on my screen. I rank this well below anything I have ever watched on film or TV, and thats saying something. I once witnessed a cow crap in a field. I watched the steaming pile for a hour and a half, who knows... it might have moved or something. Well that was time better spent than watching this tripe. The acting was non-existent, the plot was somewhere other than on this film. I think I saw a cut seen early on where the plot managed to escape and was riding off in the background on the back of a old pickup truck heading to Portland in hopes of becoming a Steven King shi77er. Please tell me director is getting medication he so desperately needs. It's pretty clear he needs heavy medication and I'd willing to front the money needed for his lobotomy reversal. Bah... I can't give this review the full punch it needs because nothing this painful can ever be done justice in typed word alone. Let me just say that if your looking for a flick to pass some time and you see this Chilton on the rack, walk to your car, start the engine, then shove both of your fists straight into the fan until it you can't feel your bones vibrate anymore. Be sure to have your wallet in hand also because you were going to waste the cash anyway. You might as well have the privilege of wasting it yourself.By the way, I watched this after a "buddy" of mine sent his girlfriend over so I could see it. HE dint come over, SHE had too. Whats worse is that she had to watch this $%&@ thing TWICE! I heard their married now and he gets to visit his balls once a month. I hope it was because of this film.


Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?


This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.


This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.


I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.


It has only been a week since I saw my first John Waters film (Female Trouble), and I wasn't sure what to expect the second time around.While the previous film was outrageously over the top, Pecker is actually a funny film that satirizes the art critics in New York to a T. Anyone who cannot imagine what these "Experts" find so appealing about modern art, will enjoy seeing these pretentious snobs get so full of themselves over Pecker, a boy who just found a broken camera and starts shooting his friends and neighbors.Edward Furlong (Pet Sematary II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) was surprisingly good as Pecker. There wasn't a lot of meat on any of the roles in this film, but he really shines.Christina Ricci (Prozac Nation) comes in with another great performance as Pecker's girlfriend. In fact, it was a banner year for Ricci (Buffalo '66, The Opposite of Sex, and Pecker.Lili Taylor, who had the only good role in The Haunting, was also a significant part of the film and really made it enjoyable.There are many funny scenes, but I have to say the best was when a crown gathers screaming, "We want bush!" "We want bush!" "We want bush!" I thought it was a Republican convention until I saw the police hauling off the dancer.I am going to have to look for more of Waters' work, especially Hairspray, now that that is in the news.


I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.


This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.


Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)"Feast of the Dead" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the "evil breeder" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.


The 63 year reign of Queen Victoria is perhaps one of the most documented and popularly known historical reigns in British history. On the one hand, her story lacks the theatrics of earlier royals thanks to a change in social climate and attitudes, and on the other her story is one that perpetuates because it is notably human. Taking on the earlier years of her life where the budding romance between herself and the German Prince Albert was taking forefront, director Jean-Marc Vallée who has only until recently remained in the unbeknownst shadows of the industry here takes Victoria's story and captures that human element so vital to her legacy. It's a story that feels extremely humble considering its exuberant background, and yet that's partly what gives it a distinct edge here that separates it from the usual fare.Taking a very direct and focused approach that centres in on a brief five or so year period between her ascension and marriage to Albert, The Young Victoria does what so little period pieces of this nature offer. Instead of attempting a sprawling encapsulation of such a figure's entire life, Vallée instead opts to show one of the lesser known intricacies of Victoria's early years which are easily overlooked in favour of the more publicly known accolades. The result is a feature that may disgruntle historians thanks to its relatively flippant regards to facts and the like, yet never to let document get in the way of extracting a compelling story, writer Julian Fellowes sticks to his guns and delivers a slightly romanticised yet convincing portrayal. Vallée takes this and runs, making sure to fully capitalise on those elements with enough restraint to maintain integrity in regards to both the history involved and the viewer watching.A major part in the joy of watching The Young Victoria play out however simply lies in the production values granted here that bring early 1800's Regal Britain to life with a vigorous realism so rarely achieved quite so strikingly by genre films. Everything from the costume designs, sets, hair styles, lighting and photography accentuates the grandiose background inherent to Victoria's story without ever over-encumbering it. Indeed, while watching Vallée's interpretation come to life here it is very hard not to be sucked in solely through the aesthetics that permeates the visual element; and then there's the film's score also which works tremendously to further the very elegant yet personal tones that dominate Fellowes' script. Entwining the works of Schubert and Strauss into Victoria and Albert's story not only works as a point of reference for the characters to play with, but also melds to the work with an elegance and refrain that echoes composer Ilan Eshkeri's original work just as well.Yet for all the poignant compositions, lush backdrops and immaculate costumes that punctuate every scene, the single most important factor hereand indeed to most period dramasare the performances of the cast and how they help bring the world they exist in to life. Thankfully The Young Victoria is blessed with an equally immaculate ensemble of thespians both young and old that do a fantastic job of doing just that. Between the sweet, budding romance of Victoria (Emily Blunt) and Albert (Rupert Friend) and the somewhat antagonistic struggles of her advisors and the like (spearheaded by a terrific Mark Strong and Paul Bettany), the conflicts and warmth so prevalent to Fellowe's screenplay are conveyed perfectly here by all involved which helps keep the movie from being a plastic "nice to look at but dim underneath" affair so common with these outings.In the end, it's hard to fault a work such as The Young Victoria. It's got a perfectly touching and human sense of affection within its perfectly paced romance, plus some historical significance that plays as an intriguing source of interest for those in the audience keen on such details. Of course, it may not take the cinematic world by storm and there lacks a certain significance to its overall presence that stops it from ever becoming more than just a poignantly restrained romantic period drama; yet in a sense this is what makes it enjoyable. Vallée never seems to be striving for grandeur, nor does he seem content at making a run-of-the-mill escapist piece for aficionados. Somewhere within this gray middle-ground lies The Young Victoria, sure to cater to genre fans and those a little more disillusioned by the usual productions; beautiful, memorable but most of all, human.- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


This movie had no parts that were hilarious, mostly just average funny units, but it did not have any parts that were really bad either. The worst part was the voice of Sid. His slothy slur was just too much for me. By about 5 minutes in I was sick of hearing him talk. Aside from the annoying sloth voice the movie was good. There were numerous side jokes which if you catch them make the movie much better. This is a good movie for kids. It has enough in it to keep adults content and enough in it to entertain kids. This one is definitely worth renting if you have kids and want to watch a movie with them.


CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars. It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out. The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.The songs of the film are great. My favourites are "Chori Chori Chupke Chupke", Dekhne Walon Ne", "Deewana Hai Yeh Mann" and "Mehndi". The song "Mehndi" is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10!


Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.


I saw this important intense film tonight. Its Richard Gere and Claire's Dane's most important and best work. Gere deserves an Oscar for his fine portrayal of a man being forced into early retirement as a sex offender registrar administrator. Claire Danes is riveting as the woman Gere handpicks to replace him - a woman he tries to teach all he can while investigating one final case in which Gere's character is convinced one of those he is charged to monitor may be holding a young girl hostage. The subject matter is shocking, sex offenders and those who monitor them, but this film will not soon be forgotten. I know I will be haunted by Gere's portrayal for a very long time. Not since Anthony Hopkins portrayal of a serial killer has a screen portrayal terrified and so engaged me. The film opens with a shocking statistic so don't miss the opening credits. Intense and memorable. Richard Gere's finest role proving the man can act. Danes can as well and both do extraordinarily well in this often challenging film.This is a gutsy film and Gere gives a multi-layered deeply felt performance. Just give him the Oscar now...he deserves it!


A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't deadonly wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing propsdodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swingsbut these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.


OK, so I rented this clown-like-Chainsaw-Massacre-esquire film, not expected much, but I did like the novel approach to a serial killer film. (from the back of the box is the following synopsis) "At first, it was just a joke - a myth around the campfire - for five friends staying at a remote cabin in the Texas woods. But when they began to disappear one-by-one, replaced by scattered, bloodied body parts and voodoo effigies, the remaining few scramble for their lives. But he's out there. And he's sick. And all he wants is blood..." So obviously from the get-go it doesn't make sense: why is this clown in the woods to begin with? Why a clown? Why are their dolls with the word "food" drawn on them? Why why why? Hardly anything gets answered in this 1 hour 30 min. bore fest except where this clown lives. The characters are dumb guys, dumb girls, and a hell of a lot of bitchiness. One in particular is a girl whom they brought from a restaurant up the road, whom they thought they should help because she was getting hassled by some guy she knew. What warrants that as an excuse to bring a girl into your circle of friends or their cabin? She, of course, begins planting seeds of jealousy, having the men have sex with her by feeding their dumb minds everything they want to hear.The music was an average affair (standard frantic keyboard music like in every horror film without differences). The actors seemed to be brought from some soap opera the way they complained and whined about everything. The idea that the main guy in the film takes this girl to the cabin as their first date makes for a horrible date, but of course, she unrealistically gives herself to him on the first night of getting to know him. There was hardly a budget spent of anything, it seems, but there was a clown outfit and plenty of cheap $1-store dolls lying around in the woods, which was a horribly bland place to shoot this whole movie (been done too many times). I was also waiting for the clown to jump into the house to kill the remaining 4 characters of the film (in through the glass maybe), but nothing exciting like that ever entered the film. I guess you were just supposed to like the clown being a killer or something.I had to give the film a 3. It was an interesting premise (clown as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre character, essentially) and I'll give them a star for acting serious all the way through when the movie could've totally been a B-movie-style video, but they opted for the more legitimate style of video. But ultimately, I probably would've felt like renting the Killer Klowns from Mars video again before going back to check this out. Ah, but that cover art...pretty awesome drawing.


Decent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C


This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).


How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an "expert" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the "land of Nazis" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning "we are the world" European to make a "real" movie about America.Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong "foreign policy".P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is "sheer genius"!!


SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10


The only real highlight in the movie is the death of the sniveling guy and the reaction of the surviving characters to it.In every other way, this film is a very lame rip-off of Jaws, Lake Placid, and Alligator, with a little bit of Godzilla (1998) thrown in.As is standard for a 1990's-style horror movie, the two non-starring females each take their clothes off at least once. The female lead doesn't, since she obviously has a better agent. The whole movie surrounds the filming of a really dumb extreme sport called blood surfing, in which surfers cut themselves and surf in shark-infested waters. In this film, a giant salt-water crocodile also happens to be in the area. People get eaten. The movie ends.I don't mind a bad horror movie, but I really hate a dull bad horror movie, which this definitely is.


I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.


Kareena Kapoor in a bikini hmmmmmmmm.Akshay Kumar...Anil Kapoor....Maybe Saif....Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....Good Banner..Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....Not one good reason not to see this movie....Or so i thought ........Didnt these people make JBJ...Why o Why did i forget that.For all the criticism the first half of the movie isn't that bad...There is some intrigue and YOU FEEL A SORT OF IRRITATION MIXED WITH EXCITEMENT THAT I FELT WHEN SEEING GUY RITCHIE MOVIES LIKE LOCK STOCK AND SNATCH.Kareena Kapoor is sizzling in a very skinny model sort of way.Akshay Kumar is Akshay Kumar as only he can be.Anil Kapoor is annoying but kind of funny, YOU ALMOST FORGET THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIM.Saif is sidey ala Main Khiladi.. once again.There is the occasional laugh and a few chuckles, and a few goosebumps during the kareena-saif love story (kareena in the rain, behind me on my bike hmmmmmmm).BUT MOSTLY THIS HALF PROMISES MORE THAN IT DELIVERS.....WHICH MAKES THE SECOND HALF ALL THE MORE UNBEARABLE....There was almost a cheer when the interval came not only because because of the wet kareena because of what people thought were the things to come.INSTEAD WE WERE TREATED TO MIND NUMBING TORTURE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO PUT IN WORDS.Saif suddenly seam like a comic sidekick...SUDDENLY THE SEXY KAREENA LOOKS ANOREXIC, YOU REALISE THAT THE SECOND LAST FLOOR IS NOW EMPTY AND HER FACE LOOKS TO BIG FOR HER BODY ( only girls can notice this and make other guys notice the second last floor was my observation).ANIL KAPOOR AND HIS SIDEKICKS GET ON YOUR NERVES.Akshay Kumar is the only one who carries off the madness to some extent but even he become intolerable after a while.ALL THE WHILE YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO ONE ABSURDITY AFTER THE OTHER.WHY??!! WHAT??!!! WHEN?!!! WHERE?!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS...A collective gasp went trough the audience before every song in the second half, which were ordinary even without the movie around it.Cannot relieve the trauma anymore....CONCLUSION.THIS MOVIE STARTS OF AS A BUZZ WHICH YOU FEEL COULD EVEN TURN OUT TO A HIGH BUT ENDS UP SLOWLY MOVING TOWARDS A HEADACHE AND THEN RAPIDLY TURNS INTO A FULL BLOWN MIGRAINE ATTACK.Please don't watch this movie for any reason other than academic interest.+s Cast, Akshay Kumar, first half.+/-s what, when, how, who to much confusion.(need a book to fill this).+s cast, the whole second half (need many pages to fill this).total 3/10 (im trying to avoid the 1s and 2s too not seem to extreme but make no mistake this movie is unwatchable no matter how decent the first half is).


I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, areslow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film.


Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)This episode is split in 2 parts.first part is Tony's "Dream" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains "his life". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die. If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb. Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.10/10 no doubt.


I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most "normal" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an "art" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star "nonactor" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting "accident".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.


The third and last film of this trilogy is finally crystal clear. It is a political film more than a plain entertainment. Jason Bourne will finally know who he was and he will discover and remember the tortures he was submitted to in order to kill his old identity: he really killed some one who became his corpse. But the film is finally revealing that all this had been organized and planned by the CIA within a Blackfriars program that is also clearly revealed in this film as aiming at eliminating all American citizens who tried to prevent the control of the whole society by an established and limited group of people. Who was one essential officer of the CIA up to 1980, when he became vice president? That goes along with what is being said on the Internet. Then the truth will come thanks to Jason Bourne himself but the main person who will be able to bring that truth to the public and the only authority that can take a decision concerning the CIA is a woman and that woman gets the Senate involved in a general investigation. A woman and the Senate; read my lips. In the USA politics are fought in the media and two media are essential for any presidential campaign: it is music and the cinema. Right now Hollywood and beyond the intelligentsia, academia and intellectuals are using the cinema in general, and this film in particular, to build up the idea in the public that salvation will come from a woman and from the Senate. So go and watch the film. It is pretty entertaining and it has the sweet fragrance of the end of a period and of the great change some are expecting and others are waiting for, but no one is able to pretend it won't come: the only point is to know how deep and serious it will be.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


I have seen virtually all of Cynthia Rothrock's films, and to me this is the funniest. It reminds me of early Jackie Chan movies. Admittedly, Ms Rothrock may not be the greatest actress, but she is very good to watch as both a martial artist and as a very cute young lady. This film, while probably not the best of all her films, was the most entertaining.


When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that "A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece." He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of "The Voice," leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner.


"Back of Beyond" takes place at a dive diner/gas station in the middle of the Australian desert run by Tom McGregor (Paul Mercurio), a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. We get what, at first, confusingly seems like a flashback in which he and his sister (though their relationship to each other is better understood later in the film) are speeding through the desert on his motorcycle. Afterwards, he appears as a terribly quiet, and sometimes, moody character in the presence of the arrivals.We know one thing is for sure and that is McGregor's sort of spiritual sense, his foresight of danger and such--his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story, the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who's car breaks down and who rely on Tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. Of course, Tom falls for one of the thieves, a young woman named Charlie, and suddenly, it pits all three already mistrusting allies against each other. But not in a way that really results in anything of much mystery or action. In fact, the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant, but really fails to do so. Even the ending, of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws), is almost just as ridiculous.It may be worth trying if you don't mind the terribly slow pacing, but are in the mood, at least, for something a little different than the usual.


Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!


Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.


This movie probably would only get a 7 or 8 from me to tell the truth if I had seen trailers or had any kind of knowledge of what the film is all about. Since it was virtually all a surprise it was almost a perfect piece of edgy entertainment that gets a strong 9 from me.I read through some of the comments briefly and saw that someone else had almost the same experience as me and he advised to just watch it. It was good advice. Read the rest at your own risk of spoiling.Eva Mendez plays a head-strong, success-starved network TV programmer that took a joke made by a co-worker while brain-storming TV program ideas about Russian Roulette seriously. The story follows her in a documentary style on her pursuit to make this happen.


This isn't among Jimmy Stewart's best films--I'm quick to admit that. However, while some view his film as pure propaganda, I'm wondering what's so wrong with that? Yes, sure, like the TV show THE FBI, this is an obvious case of the Bureau doing some PR work to try to drum up support. But, as entertainment goes, it does a good job. Plus, surprisingly enough for the time it was made, the film focuses more on crime than espionage and "Commies". Instead, it's a fictionalization of one of the earliest agents and the career he chose. Now considering the agent is played by Jimmy Stewart, then it's pretty certain the acting and writing were good--as this was a movie with a real budget and a studio who wasn't about to waste the star in a third-rate flick. So overall, it's worth seeing but not especially great.


It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time. Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English. The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date. Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.


This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.


Oh, those Italians! Assuming that movies about aristocrats with weird fetishes, castles drowned in gothic atmosphere, and back-stabbing relatives trying to get their hands on an inheritance are inherently interesting to all! If you've seen one film of this type, you've basically seen them all (the MST3K favorite "Screaming Skull" fits the mold, too)...and "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is formulaic, by-the-numbers, and dull as hell. Even the luscious Erika Blanc is put to waste here.zero/10