My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess!


Hiya folks,Well, this movie sucks really. Think "Love Actually" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The "possibilities" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and "over the top" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU! 2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!


There is a uk edition to this show which is rather less extravagant than the US version. The person concerned will get a new kitchen or perhaps bedroom and bathroom and is wonderfully grateful for what they have got. The US version of this show is everything that reality TV shouldn't be. Instead of making a few improvements to a house which the occupants could not afford or do themselves the entire house gets rebuilt. I do not know if this show is trying to show what a lousy welfare system exists in the US or if you beg hard enough you will receive. The rather vulgar product placement that takes place, particularly by Sears, is also uncalled for. Rsther than turning one family in a deprived area into potential millionaires, it would be far better to help the community as a whole where instead of spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars on one home, build something for the whole community ..... perhaps a place where diy and power tools can be borrowed and returned along with building materials so that everyone can benefit should they want to. Giving it all to one person can cause enormous resentment among the rest of the local community who still live in the same run down houses.


The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.


I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies.


Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle.


What a great actor to have in such an awful story...The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter  see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot  just by thinking about it!The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works  and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.


Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel "The Forever War." It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and John Steakley's "Armor." And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's "Iliad." A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to "Terminator 2" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts.


Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.


This film contains more action before the opening credits than are in entire Hollywood films of this sort. This film is produced by Tsui Hark and stars Jet Li. This team has brought you many worthy Hong Kong cinema productions, including the Once Upon A Time in China series. The action was fast and furious with amazing wire work. I only saw the wires in two shots. Aside from the action, the story itself was strong and not just used as filler. To find any other action films to rival this you must look for a Hong Kong cinema outlet in your area. They are really worth checking out and usually never disappoint.


The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.


This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.


Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.


Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!!


I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10. I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...


Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.


I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much.


Good for an evening's entertainment - but the plot was unconvincing. Garrison's affair with the First Lady was unreal and passionless; the President was a cardboard cut-out. And who were the real villains anyway? Nothing was developed or explained sufficiently. I still don't know why they wanted to kill the President or how the mole got involved. The villains were nameless and undeveloped, so you never felt involved in their plot. Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland did their best to inject some reality into the story - the chase and confrontation were good. But Kim Basinger and Eva Longoria were both unbelievable in their roles, Basinger totally lacked character and no way could Longoria have been a Secret Service agent. This could have been a very good film but somehow it missed the way, with too many unanswered questions. Disappointing on the whole despite some very good scenes. And did they use the 'West Wing' set for the White House scenes? - I kept expecting CJ or Charlie to appear!


Make up your own mind. Personally I found it as much fun as receiving a spinal tap from Stevie Wonder. No offense Mr. Wonder. Maybe it is comedy, but I just found it stupid. Not exactly the first two choices to babysit your kids; Wheeler(Seann William Scott)and Danny(Paul Rudd),two energy drink salesmen, to avert jail time are court ordered to mentor two kids from a development center run by Gayle Sweeny(Jane Lynch). One of the misfits is Ronnie(Bobb'e J. Thompson), a foul-mouthed fifth grader and the other is Augie(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a bashful young man that roll plays in a fantasy medieval world. Wheeler and Danny desperately try to give their charges an invaluable inside view of life, love and heavy metal. Lynch is hilarious with her dry wit analogies. Supporting are: Elizabeth Banks, Ken Jeongg, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Amanda Righetti and David Wain.


Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep.


I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.


fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again.


While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama. The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.7 or 8 out of 10.


Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).


When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her "mystical powers"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here.


THE BLOB is a great horror movie, not merely because of the vividly horrific images of its nearly unstoppable, flesh-dissolving title character, but because it features a real societal message. It is, in many ways, a "feel-good horror film." The clever storyline is helped immeasurably by solid performances from the entire cast. The two romantic leads, Steve McQueen and Aneta Corsaut, bring surprising depth and sentimentality to the proceedings. They are misunderstood but very well-meaning young people, and it's very easy to root for them.This is a pro-society movie, and its juvenile delinquent characters cause trouble mainly out of boredom, not out of some malevolent character flaw. Steve McQueen's drag-racing rival almost appears to be an enemy early on in the proceedings, but quickly joins in McQueen's campaign to save the town from the oozing invader once he sees McQueen's seriousness. In this way, a character situation that at first appears to be cartoonish suddenly develops depth and human realism.The authorities' initial skepticism of the kids' wild claims is proved wrong--and once the threat is acknowledged by all, all conflict within the society disappears. This unification of purpose, and the validation of the "troublemaking" teens, becomes official when Aneta Corsaut's father breaks into the school to obtain the fire extinguishers needed to freeze the Blob. On any other day, breaking into the school would be considered an act of vandalism typical of a juvenile delinquent--on this particular day, it is a necessary action performed by an adult authority figure. At this turning point, it is clear that there are no lines of division between the young and the old.This is an unusual film in that it acknowledges the perception of a "generation gap" but suggests that it is more imaginary than real, and that given a real crisis, people will naturally band together to restore order. "The Blob" is a perfect tonic for the kind of depression that generally comes with a viewing of "Night of the Living Dead" (1968).Much has been made of the film's cheap but innovative (and effective!) visual effects. They are undeniably clever. A lot of the gravity-defying tricks we see the Blob perform were achieved with miniature sets designed to be rotated. The camera was typically attached to the sets in a very firmly "locked down" position (the lights had to be similarly attached so that the lighting remained steady as the room was turned this way and that). These scenes were often photographed one frame at a time as the room was slowly turned--the silicone blob oozed very slowly and its action needed to be sped up. In a way, this was similar to stop motion photography, but utilizing a blob of silicone rather than an articulated puppet. Even today, the effects are startling and bizarre.A very good film with an exploitative-sounding title, THE BLOB is a must-see.


I remember trying a few minutes of this film, I'm very surprised I didn't watch all of it, from director Steve Gordon, his only film directed before dying of heart failure. Basically Arthur Bach (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Dudley Moore) is the happy drunk millionaire with everything he could want, a mansion, a butler Hobson (Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Sir John Gielgud), and plenty of booze. He is to inherit $750,000,000 if he marries the daughter of fellow millionaire Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott), they woman he and the family have chosen, Susan (Jill Eikenberry). But instead, Arthur finds himself falling for Queens waitress Linda Marolla (Golden Globe nominated Liza Minnelli), which of course is threatening the inheritance, and 3/4 of his family's fortune from father Stanford (Thomas Barbour) and Aunt Martha (Geraldine Fitzgerald). After the death of Hobson, Arthur, on the day of the wedding, disobeys the family's wishes, but Aunt Martha still gives Arthur the inheritance to live happily ever after with true love Linda. Also starring Ted Ross as Bitterman, Barney Martin as Ralph Marolla, Anne De Salvo as Gloria - Hooker, Maurice Copeland as Uncle Peter Bach, Justine Johnston as Aunt Pearl Bach, Florence Tarlow as Mrs. Nesbitt, Marcella Lowery as Harriet - Martha's Maid, John Bentley as Perry and Peter Evans as Preston Langley - Party Guest. Moore is wonderfully funny and a little cringing as the almost always drunk millionaire, Minnelli is likable as the woman he loves, and Gielgud of course makes a great Oscar winning impression as Moore's humorous humble sarcastic servant, a terrific screwball comedy. It won the Oscar for Best Song for "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" (it also won the Golden Globe) (it was number 79 on 100 Years, 100 Songs), and it was nominated Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, it was nominated the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Burt Bacharach, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Sir John Gielgud was number 35 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and the film was number 53 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!


The music of Albeniz pervades this film. Once and a while it is played with original instrumentation (e.g. piano, but never full orchestra), but often it is re-worked with various contemporary ensembles (e.g.guitar) and treatments (e.g. jazz piano). Only occasionally is the music the sole focus of the film: the vast majority of the time the music is set to various dances, often flamenco, but not always. I would guess that there are 1214 scenes, which are not united by a plot. Not all scenes will reach the heights for an individual viewer. In my case about half reached the pinnacle, though all the rest were in their own way very fine. Those that worked for me moved me to goose-flesh aesthetic delight; indeed, the final scene left me weepy with joy. And in some very magical way it brings you deep into Spanish culture. If you don't like subtitles, don't worry. The film is virtually wordless, though each scene carries a title of an Albeniz piece. Seeing this very beautiful film sharpens my complaint that virtually none of the films of Saura are available on DVD in the USA. I am thinking here particularly of his flamenco version of "Carmen," a spectacular work of art that is available in Europe but not here (European DVD's won't play on American DVD players). This is a scandal.


Although I'm grateful this obscure gem of 70's Italian exploitation cinema features in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience" box set, and although it's also available on disc under the misleading and stupid alternate title "Escape from Death Row", I honestly think it deserves a proper and luxurious DVD edition, completely in its originally spoken languages with subtitle options (the dubbing is truly horrible), restored picture quality and a truckload of special bonus features! Heck, I don't even need the restored picture quality and bonus features if only we could watch the film in its original language. "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony" is a cheerfully fast-paced mafia/crime flick with a lot of violence, comedy (which, admittedly, doesn't always work), feminine beauty and two witty main characters. Tony Lo Bianco is terrific as the small thug pretending to be the city's biggest Don. When the real crime lord Frankie Dio (Lee Van Cleef) arrives in town, he sees an opportunity to climb up the ladder by offering his services. Frankie initially ignores the little crook, but they do eventually form an unlikely team when Frankie's entire criminal empire turns against him and a new French criminal mastermind even assassinates Frankie's innocent brother. Tony helps Frankie to escape from prison and together they head for Marseille to extract Frankie's revenge. The script of this sadly neglected crime gem funnily alters gritty action & suspense with light-headed bits of comedy, like the grotesque car chase through the narrow French mountain roads for example. The build up towards the typical mafia execution sequences (guided by an excellent Riz Ortolani score) are extremely tense and the actual killings are sadistic and merciless, which is probably why the film is considered to be somewhat of a grindhouse classic. The film lacks a strong female lead, as the lovely and amazingly voluptuous beauty Edwige Fenech sadly just appears in a couple of scenes, and then still in the background. On of the men behind the camera, responsible for the superb cinematography, was no less then Joe D'Amato. Great film, highly recommended to fans of Italian exploitation, and I hope to watch it again soon in its original version.


The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. "It can't matter", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers "it must matter" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema.


The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10


wow i payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it.


I have to hand it to the creative team behind these "American Pie" movies. "Direct To DVD" typically is synonymous with cheap, incompetent film-making. Yet last year I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself thoroughly enjoying the DVD sequel "The Naked Mile". The filmmakers took advantage of the opportunity to deliver a raunchy, yet funny little film. This year they offer up the followup, "Beta House". This is the honest truth, "Beta House" makes the first few "American Pie" movies look like "The Little Mermaid".This is no holds barred, tasteless, laugh-out loud fun. Sure, the story is a bit thin, but that's the beauty of the whole thing. Within the first 10 minutes we're introduced to the all the main characters, the new supporting characters, get a handful of raunchy gags, meet the villains, and establish the general plot-line. With all that out of the way, the movie becomes a no-limits ride. The gags are a plenty, and they DID NOT hold back in this one. I'm talking male semen, urine, dildos, chicks-with-dicks, sex with sheep, female orgazim sprays, and plenty more. Not to mention the fact that not a minute goes by without boobs or a sex scene.Returning from "The Naked Mile" are John White, Jake Siegel, Steve Talley, and Eugene Levy (in a similar supporting role as the last few films). The entire cast does fine work. Steve Talley (Dwight Stifler), in particular, has a great energy and screen presence. I predict good things for him. The film is also loaded with great movie references for those who keep their eyes open. By far the biggest laugh of the film for me was "The Deerhunter" parody. Classic.The bottom line is, if you're a fan of the series, you'll feel right at home with "Beta House". It really pushes the limits of good taste, but in the end is pretty damn funny.


As you probably already know, Jess Franco is one prolific guy. Hes made hundreds upon hundreds of films, many of which are crap. However, he managed to sneak in an occasionally quality work amongst all the assembly line exploitation. "Succubus" isn't his best work (thats either "The Diabolical Dr. Z" or "Vampyros Lesbos"), but it has many of his trademarks that make it a must for anyone interested in diving into his large catalog. He combines the erotic (alternating between showing full-frontal nudity and leaving somethings left to the imagination) and the surreal seamlessly. This is a very dreamlike film, full of great atmosphere. I particularly liked the constant namedropping. Despite coming off as being incredibly pretentious, its amusing to hear all of Franco's influences.Still, there are many users who don't like "Succubus" and I can see where they're coming from. Its leisurely paced, but I can deal with that. More problematic is the incoherency. The script here was obviously rushed, and within five minutes into the film I had absolutely no idea what was going on (and it never really came together from that point on). Those who want some substance with their style, look elsewhere. Also, if its a horror film, it never really becomes scary or even suspenseful. Still, I was entertained by all the psychedelic silliness that I didn't really mind these major flaws all too much. (7/10)


Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.Succinctness?Soul?Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.


This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!


...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.


How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience.


A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was "interesting", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making.


Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.


Well... Vivah is quite a good, but typical Sooraj Barjatya's movie. It shows different aspects of Indian families, wedding ceremonies, etc. The movie is more than good, but not extremely good.The big plus point of the movie is direction, music and Shahid and Amrita's acting (especially the last scene). The movie starts with a common factor of Indian movie--- A girl being disliked by her step-mother. Story is the movie is a bit common, but it is good, good enough to make the movie a blockbuster.Minus point is common story of Bollywood movie. Overall I would say it is two times must watch movie, if you want to see typical Indian family values and of-course love!


This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm


The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: "Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy".The whole concept does not play as intended: The "illusion" is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers "suspension of disbelief".


I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the "hype" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of "mostly true" fiction is the way things really were there.


You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.


"Hey Babu Riba" is a film about a young woman, Mariana (nicknamed "Esther" after a famous American movie star), and four young men, Glenn, Sacha, Kicha, and Pop, all perhaps 15-17 years old in 1953 Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The five are committed friends and crazy about jazz, blue jeans, or anything American it seems.The very close relationship of the teenagers is poignant, and ultimately a sacrifice is willingly made to try to help one of the group who has fallen on unexpected difficulties. In the wake of changing communist politics, they go their separate ways and reunite in 1985 (the year before the film was made).I enjoyed the film with some reservations. The subtitles for one thing were difficult. Especially in the beginning, there were a number of dialogues which had no subtitles at all. Perhaps the conversational pace required it, but I couldn't always both read the text and absorb the scene, which caused me to not always understand which character was involved. I watched the movie (a video from our public library) with a friend, and neither of us really understood part of the story about acquiring streptomycin for a sick relative.This Yugoslavian coming of age film effectively conveyed the teenagers' sense of invulnerability, idealism, and strong and loyal bonds to each other. There is a main flashforward, and it was intriguing, keeping me guessing until the end as to who these characters were vis-a-vis the 1953 cast, and what had actually happened.I would rate it 7 out of 10, and would like to see other films by the director, Jovan Acin (1941-1991).


Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish.


In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels.


This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.Watcheable enough because of that.


Phantom Lady (1944) Dir: Robert Siodmak Production: Universal PicturesScott Henderson (Alan Curtis), following a nasty fight and split with his wife, looks to drown his sorrows at the local watering hole. There he spies a woman in a similar emotional state and, looking for some companionship, asks her to a show at a club to get both their minds off their problems. She agrees, but only on the condition that they keep their names to themselves. Sure enough, when Scott gets home he finds the police there, waiting to question him. His wife's been murdered. Where were you at 8 o'clock this evening, asks Inspector Burgess (Thomas Gomez)? But Scott has an alibi, right? Only he doesn't know the woman's name. And the bartender remembers Scott but not the woman. Neither does the cab driver. Nor the drummer (Elisha Cook Jr.) at the club. Even the dancer at the club, who Scott clearly caught looking at the woman (they were both wearing the same hat), won't acknowledge there was someone with him. Something is going on, but whatever it is Scott is helpless to defend himself at a trial and is sentenced to death for his wife's murder (on the flimsiest 'evidence' in Hollywood judicial history). It's left to his loyal secretary, 'Kansas' (Ella Raines), who's later joined by a sympathetic Inspector Burgess, to find out the real killer before Scott is executed.Phantom Lady is built on themes that recur, almost compulsively, in Woolrich's work. For example, the schizophrenic antagonist is also seen in Black Angel and The Leopard Man. Additionally, there is the character who becomes mentally unhinged by the death of a sweetheart or spouse as found in Rendezvous in Black and The Bride Wore Black. It can leave a viewer feeling like he's treading on well worn ground. But in the right hands, the feverish plots, sorry dialogue, the narrative inconsistencies, all are beside the point. Fortunately, Phantom Lady was being guided by sound hands.This is Siodmak's first noir. He would go on to distinguish himself as one of the, if not the, preeminent practitioners of the style (The Killers, Criss Cross). Here he is fortuitously paired with cinematographer Woody Bredell (they would be reunited on Christmas Holiday and The Killers). There is some great storytelling done in the camera. In one shot, the deteriorating mental state of a character is shown as he sits in front of a 3-way mirror, suggesting multiple personalities. The same character, who is an artist, has Van Gogh's self portrait with the bandaged ear hanging on the wall in his apartment. But what Siodmak and Bredell are really doing in Phantom Lady is practically creating the look for noir. Released very early in 1944, it's all here; the wet pavement, the bags of atmosphere and dread, the sharply contrasting b&w, the wildly expressionistic versions of reality (when Kansas visits Scott in prison), the discordant shafts of light, etc. It is a terrific picture to look at.Franchot Tone aside, the cast, as well as the subject matter and relative inexperience of the director (and presumably, the budget), suggests 'B' movie ambitions. I thought Tone was a little hammy. Alan Curtis (High Sierra) is not up to much, and actually comes off pretty weak in a few scenes. Ella Raines is mostly good (and quite beautiful). Her 'sex scene' with Elisha Cook Jr. is so delirious it has to be seen to be believed. Another standout scene is when Kansas goes after the bartender to question him. It amounts to a chase scene, as she relentlessly dogs him through the streets, with a stop at a subway station. Some real good tension in there.*** out of 4


i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.


I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad!


This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity. Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.


In life, we first organize stones (Piedras in Spanish) such as a career, family, friendship, and love. In this way, we shall find space between these to fit smaller stones, our small necessities. If you act in an inverse way, you will not have enough room for larger stones. The five protagonists in this film are women who have not been able to organize the large "stones" in their lives. Ramon Salazar, a Spanish motion picture director defines his first feature Stones in this way. The film tells the parallel, conflicting trajectory of five women: Anita (Monica Cervera, 1975-), Isabel (Angela Molina, 1955-), Adela (Antonia San Juan, 1961-), Leire (Najwa Nimri, 1972-), and Maricarmen (Vicky Pena, 1954-).All are endeavoring to remove the stones that insistently appear in their path or, worst, that are in their shoes. They are five Cinderellas in search of Prince Charming and a new chance in life. The best story of these five Cinderellas is that of Anita (Monica Cervera) who also stars in "20 Centimeters," "Busco," "Crimen Ferpecto," "Entre Vivir y Sonar," "Hongos," and "Octavia." Sarge Booker of Tujunga, California


Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.


Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!


This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison  his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.


Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel
 there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not
 He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.


OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.


In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.


Poor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one.


Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen.


A wonderful, free flowing, often lyrical film that whisks you along, ever smiling, even if there are truly shocking incidents along the way. One gasps at the way the women are treated and yet ultimately they seem to come through very well and it is much credit to all concerned that so many potentially disastrous scenes all work so very well. This is possibly Depardieu's best performance, certainly his most natural. Jeanne Moreau performs outstandingly in what must have been a very difficult role to play and including vigorous sex scenes with a couple of guys at least half her age. Miou-Miou is lovely throughout and again has very difficult scenes to play. Initially this seems a down and dirty misogynist rant/romp but as the tale and characters unfold a much more tender and honest picture emerges. In the end this uncompromising and daring film demands respect.


One of the finest musicals made, one that is timeless and is worth seeing time and again. Delicious! The acting, especially by Ron Moody as Fagin, is superb. Costumes are exquisite....even the shabby ones.The two young lads who play Oliver and The Artful Dodger are wonderfully talented. Oliver Reed does a great job portraying Bill Sykes to where you can't help but hope he comes to a terrible end....which he does. The dancing is cleverly choreographed and is mesmerizing. Oliver can hold its own with the likes of My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, etc. A film for the entire family.


Must have to agree with the other reviewer. This has got to be the WORST movie, let alone western I have ever seen. Terrible acting, dialogue that was unimaginative and pathetic (let alone completely inappropriate for supposedly being in the 1800s), and oh, did I mention a battery pack prominently displayed on the back of one of the characters? I was waiting for the boom mike to fall in the middle of a scene. And the ending? The least I can say is that it was consistent with the rest of the movie...completely awful. And yes, it did contain every cliché in the book from the slow walk down the empty dusty road to the laughable "let's remember when" shots when a main character dies. Luckily I saw this on free TV. Don't waste your time.


BTK Killer, Green River Killer, Zodiac Killer; the man keeps putting out absolute garbage and the ironic thing is, he loves his crap.I've never seen a Ulli Lommel film but I was so amazed on how everyone thinks his stuff is so awful. Like the movies I said in the beginning don't even equal a six when added together! After reading the comments I was curious to see how bad this guy really is. He is the worst out there.The credits wouldn't end as the pathetic movie started and quickly I noticed that the audio was incredibly badly dubbed in. The acting was incredibly awful and same to the camera shots. The editing is easily the worst. This movie made no sense and I unbearably couldn't take it anymore as it wouldn't end and I was only 45 minutes in the movie. I couldn't take it anymore. I wasted 45 minutes of my life.DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP!


There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.


THE ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!.


For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.


A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.


New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.


In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.


A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters. As an absolute fan of movies including some kind of vicious animals or monsters, I thought this might be my kind of movie... it wasn't!!! This should be more of a guideline of how not to do it! It has a lot of accidental humor in it and the evil beast is an incredible joke, in the final scene it goes after the main characters *rolling*, the feet are obviously waving in the air! It looks ridiculous! Good for a laugh though. If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of "sex sells"... Totally, i mean TOTALLY without any reasons one of the main actresses shows her breasts to the beast. And somewhere towards the beginning there's some kind of meaningless "makeout". This is the last ingredient making the movie absolute trash to me. It's incredible how people actually spend time producing such rubbish! If you are seeking for a real waste of time: watch this movie!!!


I have a 19-month old and got really tired of watching Care Bears all the time. Rooney is a great dancer, who cares if he is gay. This guy must have been a cheerleader or something.Beats Barney, cant get the songs out of my head....must...stop singing........Doodlebops songs........NOW.Must have 10 lines of text so I must continue.....what about when the say all the Canadian stuff like OOOUT Aboooot. Whacky Canadians.....Jazmine is rhyming too much, she must be Dutch.Knock knock, who's there, Dee Dee, super HottieBus driver Bob cannot dance, take lessons from Rooney


While I loved this movie, the trailers that circulated the internet the year before it hit theaters set my expectations a bit high.I own the DVD, so don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't watch it or even buy it! It's just that I still think the first scene was the best, and nothing throughout the entire movie ever topped it.


Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so "discovering" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea. Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?


"Shinobi" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, "Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*." THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of it.