In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life  preferably sooner than later  that you have to watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called "eco-horror" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the "Jaws" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin ("The Addams Family") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life.


I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.


I remember when this was in theaters, reviews said it was horrible. Well, I didn't think it was that bad. It was amusing and had a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning families around holiday time.Ben Affleck is a rich guy who needs to find a family for Christmas to please his girlfriend. He goes to visit the house he grew up in and strikes a deal to rent the family there for Christmas. I really liked the lawyer scene where they sign a contract. That was funny.So, he makes silly requests of the family and even writes scripts for them to read. Of course, the family has a hot daughter for the love interest. And he learns that the holidays aren't so bad after all.Also, the whole doo-dah act was funny, especially when they replaced the first one with a black guy, and the girlfriends's parents didn't even say anything about it. And the parts where doo-dah is hitting on his "supposed daughter." FINAL VERDICT: I thought it's worth checking out if you catch it on cable.


I first rented this film many years ago, and was completely enthralled by it. Just recently, feeling a strange need to revisit some of the way-too-few films that I've immensely enjoyed in my lifetime, I decided to give "Erendira" another look. And I'm glad I did, as I soon discovered that even the passage of time has not in the least dulled the shine of this film.The story is about a teenaged girl (Erendira, played remarkably by Claudia O'hana - in some respects she resembles Winona Ryder!) who accidentally burns down her grandmother's mansion after which the grandmother, played downright hypnotically by Irene Papas, forces the girl into a life of prostitution on the road to repay the damages. The viewing is at once fascinating and compelling - though, inspite of the basic premise, which deals with prostitution, is tastefully void of gratuitous steamy sexual content. The story revolves more around the interactions between the girl and her grandmother, and the various other colorful characters with whom they come into contact on their sojourn - which, by the way, is in the rough and tumble part of rural Mexico.The film is very atmospheric, arrestingly enigmatic with a decided dreamlike quality. It sometimes borders on the bizarre, but not to the point of, say, a David Lynch film. It's also worth mentioning that the film is very allegorical in nature, read the comments from previous viewers below...Often in the background you hear the sounds of a lone accordion, quiet and melancholy, adding just the right musical accents to highlight the Mexican setting. The cinematography of the rural places, many of which are in the desert, is quite superb.The film moves at a nice pace, neither too fast nor too slow, and after every scene I felt I had to rewind the tape and play it over again, just because it makes you want to do that. For me anyway, it really is that compelling.Hopefully you will see the film in its Spanish language version, with subtitles. I studied Spanish in high school as well as in college, and I was happy to be able to understand much of the dialogue. Por ejemplo: "El mundo no es tan grande como pensaba." ("The world's not as big as I thought" - i.e., It's a small world.)This film somehow reminds me of stumbling upon a dusty old bottle of vintage wine, which, upon drinking, is immensely satisfying, however, you are left with some sadness upon realizing that there aren't more bottles just like this one.


I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.


How many centuries will pass until the Japanese/Asian horror films abandon the long-haired ghost-woman shtick? Admittedly, they've managed to rip off "Ringu" a million times, and often it worked well - which just goes to show that originality isn't that much of a requirement in the horror genre (or that I'm very uncritical and easy to please?). However, this time around I found myself a little restless, somewhat bored. It's not a bad film, but it's at least half-an-hour longer than it should be, with its absurd 110 minutes length. Compared to many other Japanese horror films, OMC lacks atmosphere and excitement. Plus, the ending is confusing: it makes no sense at all. As for the ring-tone: Miike could have come up with a melody that is more effective than that forgettable little thing. Even though it was played a dozen times I can't even remember it - that's how scary it was. Speaking of Miike, for him this is something of a commercial venture, so if anyone thinks they might be getting perversion of the "Bijita Q" or "Audition" kind, they're wasting their time.


A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one.


Another violent, angry fantasy from Paul Verhoeven. Verhoeven is a puzzle: it's difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously, with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. He also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story, dialogue and performance. Kevin Bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. Bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`The River Wild') in an attempt to offset his boyish looks; given the material, however, Bacon isn't nearly hateful enough to compel. The other principals are Elisabeth Shue and Josh Brolin, neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who, when forced to deliver inane dialogue, embarrass themselves. The climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended.


I was always a big fan of this movie, first of all have you seen the cast, the acting is superb and help make this movie move along very well. Cybill Shepherd was given great reviews for her role, and they were well deserved. The beginning of this movie starts in the past when Corinne Jeffries (Cybill) whose picture-perfect marriage comes to a shattering halt when her husband Louie dies unexpectedly. Fortunately, Louse gets a second shot at life when he agrees to be "recycled" back to earth as the newborn Alex Finch (Robert Downey, JR). Alex goes on to live his new life forgetting his past life while Corinne tries to get on with hers. But fate crosses Alexs path 23 years later when he meets Corinne's daughter Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson) and is suddenly flooded with a wealth of unwanted memories (this is where the fun begins, and embarrassing situations occur.) The music is great and the scenes are heart felt and very cute. You wont be disappointed if you give it a chance, Chances Are you'll like it. Very funny and sweet!


When I saw it for the first time I was really impressed.The director made such a mysterious atmosphere, especially in the end. Through all the story spectators can expect that Richard will really kill Thomas or he will do it first.But..the main point was not conflict but..FRIENDSHIP!Older and mature one prayed himself to save the younger who has the whole life to life.It is amazing. Every time I watch it I enjoy!Of course it is pretty violent like every action movie but I think it is acceptable. Thanks a lot Louis Liosa and Tom Berenger! Amazing film!I advice everyone to see it.I am sure people wont regret and will really have a good time.


The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The "suspenseful" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry.


I will always have a soft spot for this Disney flick, another of their part live action/part animation entries that sought to recreate the success of "Mary Poppins" and never quite made it. When I was in grade school, every once in a while we would have a movie day, where the whole school would crowd into the cafeteria, and a movie would be projected the old-fashioned way, multiple reels and all. At the time, it seemed like a momentous occasion whenever this day arrived, and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is one of the movies I can remember seeing this way.And from what I remember, it's quite charming. Angela Lansbury never put her name to anything that wasn't at least competent, and she's winning here as a witch with a magic bed (boy, that could be misconstrued, couldn't it?) who can take her and a couple of young kids on magic adventures to far-off places. Come on, what kid wouldn't want a bed like that? Grade: A


Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.


So I flipped on the digital subscriber channels one night a couple of years ago and thought I'd pass a half hour watching "Girlfight" while waiting for "Hart's War" to start. With a title like that I figured it was some exploitation 'B' flic about inner city girl gangs.Much to my surprise it wasn't about that at all. Instead it is a well acted, well scripted story about a young woman who almost accidentally gets into female boxing. She is responsible for taking her younger brother to his practice sessions and get interested while observing his bouts. As he doesn't really want to be a boxer (only following through on their father's wishes) she convinces his coach to take her on in his stead. The story unfolds in an intelligent and believable way as she goes through various trials on her quest. For starters, her brother's coach doesn't want to take on a female boxer. After grudgingly doing so there is the problem of lining up matches for her. Then the confrontation with her father when he finds out what is going on. Yes, a love interest develops but it serves to enhance the plot, coming across more of an interesting inter-human reaction with its own fight related consequences.All in all this is a great little sleeper movie that few seem to have heard of. Some time later when I saw the much advertised and acclaimed "Million Dollar Baby" I thought "wait a minute, this seems kind of familiar". Needless to say, I didn't watch "Hart's War" that night.


Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+.


"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again."Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.9 out of 10. *** 1/2


A top contender for worst film ever made. Joanna Pakula's character seems to have an I.Q. of 3 which is only one less than the writer and director. The screenplay would not have passed in a high school writing class; the "jokes" are juvenile; the concept corny. These performers were obviously desperate for work. I stayed to the end only to see if it would get worse. It did. Life is too short to spend any part of it watching this film.


This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great.


I waited ages before seeing this as all the reviews I read of this said it was horrible! i rented it expecting the worst, and while it is hardly the best sandler film out there, there are much worse! Sandler frequently talks to the camera and the film does not take itself seriously, but that is all part of the fun! A great way to waste an afternoon, and you might even find yourself laughing once a twice! A good film, well worth renting!


Who would have thought that such an obscure little film could be so haunting and touching? I am really impressed. It's a shame that more people have not seen it. I loved, as always, Hans Zimmer's score. And what a directorial debut by Bernard Rose! Yet I wonder if I should call this a horror film. It could easily be argued that it is a fantasy or a drama as well. Well, regardless, I love the interpretive potential it has. Everything and everyone in Anna's (played by Charlotte Burke)dreams represents a real conflict in her life...the house itself, the tree, Mark, the lighthouse, etc. It is the many details such as these that make the film so good for repeated viewings. I hope I come across another little movie as loaded with emotion and psychological meaning as this one some time soon.


Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.


TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!


This is the first of "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this "Romeo & Juliet" has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of "Prince Valium" from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.


This story is beautifully acted. It is both sad and heartwarming about a young girl's journey to discover where she has come from and where she is going. Stephanie was adopted by her mother's best friend after her mother and father were killed in a car crash, and ever since she has been labeled the 'miracle baby', she is dyslexic and is finding life a bit tough. Her findings along the way affect those closest around her. Her relationship with her guardian and her guardian's ex boyfriend are handled very delicately and sensitively, and the whole of the supporting cast are genuine, 3 dimensional and believable. Set around a peach canning factory in small town Australia, this is a warm gentle, erotic film, and leaves you with a pleasant feeling when the credits close. After reading some of the other rather shallow comments about Hugo Weaving, I would like to add that I think he was brilliantly cast, and was extremely sexy. No, he is not Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean that he isn't attractive.


I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher.


The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is elegant, subtle, beautiful, and tragic all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he matures into his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray a whole other dimension to Smith, a refinement of talent, the selectivity of scripts, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to fully enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for the fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice.


Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.


The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.


I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb.


This film is not morbid, nor is it depressing. It -is- sad, because AIDS in the early '90s -was- sad. But its real message is one of love and perseverance.Mark and Tom were in a long-term, loving relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident right away, and as the ravages of AIDS escalate and become the focal point of their lives, you see strength and commitment that are truly heartwarming.When "Silverlake Life" was originally released, I was deeply involved in HIV/AIDS education and health care, volunteering as a counselor at an HIV/AIDS clinic. The film spoke to me like no other AIDS film of its day could, because Mark and Tom were real people, living the very experiences that I saw on a daily basis in real life. I knew from firsthand experience what it was like to watch AIDS eat away at formerly vibrant, young, healthy people; seeing it happen to Mark and Tom in the film was very much like watching my real-life friends deteriorate. It touched me in a way that, even all these years later, still affects me.


What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.


An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with "Oh God". So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7.


I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.


I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor. The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity. A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.


This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.


Not even Goebbels could have pulled off a propaganda stunt like what Gore has done with this complete piece of fiction. This is a study in how numbers and statistics can be spun to say whatever you have predetermined them to say. The "scientists" Gore says have signed onto the validity of global warming include social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Would you say a meteorologist is an expert in neuro-surgery? The field research and data analysis geologists are involved in do not support Gores alarmist claims of global warming. As one of those geologists working in the field for the last 40 years I have not seen any evidence to support global warming. My analysis of this movie and Gores actions over the last couple years brings me to the conclusion that global warming is his way of staying important and relevant. No more, no less. Ask any global warming alarmist or "journalist" one simple question- You say global warming is a major problem. Tell me. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?


This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one.


So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.


I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.


Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.


If you like animal movies, this movie will please. My wife likes animals and animal movies, she especially like the parrot in this film. It is geared towards kids, but I laughed at most of the humor. The French fashion character made me laugh, and adds balance to the script. It is a Disney film, with its sappy, happily, family apeal, but I like leaving the theater with a positive fealing.


This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was "chosen" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor.


If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.Grade: D


Just watched this after my mother brought it back from America for me, was dreading watching this after all the negative comments on here but I have to say, yes the acting is cheesy, some of the effects are laughable.But you have to remember this was meant to be 1898 not 2005, and for such a low budget I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed this version much more then the Spielberg version I saw last week.I have read the book so many times, and found myself going "ahh yes that's in the book" almost all the time, with the other version hardly anything of the book existed.So well done for at least trying to make a true version.


"Such a Long Journey" is a well crafted film, a good shoot, and a showcase for some good performances. However, the story is such a jumble of subplots and peculiar characters that it becomes a sort of Jack of all plots and master of none. Also, Western audiences will likely find the esoterics of the rather obscure Parsee culture a little much to get their arms around in 1.7 hours. Recommended for those with an interest in India.


This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.


The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can.


White man + progress + industrialization = BAD. First nations + nature + animals = GOOD. Simple formula. Actually, in past days the same kind of propaganda was used to defend the status quo; now it is used to attack it. However, that being said, I think the movie does succeed in overcoming hackneyed politicization because it plays to the themes of freedom and original nature in a way that appeals to everyone. You may not be onside with the movie's rubbishy revisionism of how the West was won, er lost. But anyone can feel a sense of longing for the days when horses could run free on the Western plains. (The movie also conveniently sidesteps the fact that there were no horses in America before the evil white man brought them there). Anyway, I liked it. The quality of the animation - especially the opening shot - is incredible.


Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more.


The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.


I've seen tons of science fiction from the 70s; some horrendously bad, and others thought provoking and truly frightening. Soylent Green fits into the latter category. Yes, at times it's a little campy, and yes, the furniture is good for a giggle or two, but some of the film seems awfully prescient. Here we have a film, 9 years before Blade Runner, that dares to imagine the future as somthing dark, scary, and nihilistic. Both Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson fare far better in this than The Ten Commandments, and Robinson's assisted-suicide scene is creepily prescient of Kevorkian and his ilk. Some of the attitudes are dated (can you imagine a filmmaker getting away with the "women as furniture" concept in our oh-so-politically-correct-90s?), but it's rare to find a film from the Me Decade that actually can make you think. This is one I'd love to see on the big screen, because even in a widescreen presentation, I don't think the overall scope of this film would receive its due. Check it out.


I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible.


I have this movie on DVD and must have watched it thirty times by now. I must really love it, right? Well, not really.I was a surfer earlier in my life, and I loved the sport. To this day, I am fascinated by good surfing. Riding Giants has plenty of that, and thus I am a sucker for the thing. But I definitely have some bones to pick with it. (Peralta, you listening?).First, the movie has too little faith in its subject matter. The cutting and editing of the waves is such that the majority of them are sort of ruined. Very, very few waves are actually shown ridden from start to finish. Peralta seems addicted to a hyper kinetic, cut-and-pace method. It gets especially bad in the middle section on the spot Mavericks in Northern California. Not a single wave is ridden start to finish. Almost the entire section on Mavericks (one third of the movie) is a jarring montage of clips with an equally jarring soundtrack. I can understand the effect Peralta was trying to achieve with Mavericks, as the place is a truly frightening mix of bone crushing waves in frigid open ocean chop, but he goes way too far. Mavericks is not just a bad acid trip. Waves are actually ridden there, even with great performances. It would have been good to see some of them. If Peralta thinks this is a grand sport (and I am sure he does), then why does he insist on messing with the subject matter so much? At times, the editing reduces the movie to the inscrutable. There is one fast clip in the section on Peahi in Hawaii, which I still cannot understand. Even if I run it on slow motion on DVD, the image is too fast to be decipherable. It must be a couple of frames in length at the max.Second, have the guys who made this thing ever learned about understatement? It is particularly galling to watch the narrated directors' version on DVD. These guys sound like two over-the-top valley girls. The same sentiment shows up in the main production. Every thing is always so goddamn "amazing" etc. One character in particular is just plain obnoxious -- Sam George, the editor of Surfer Magazine, who is practically peeing in his pants every time he has anything to say. He is a super drag on the movie.There is a tremendous amount of effort that went into this movie. I mean, just to get the old movie shots they have, and also, all of the interviews. The movie is a great story, and I think it is generally captivating entertainment. Thematically it is well laid out, with the three parts centering around Greg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton respectively. There are some uses of still photography that are phenomenal. In the directors' narration, they say it is a new type of 3D technology, and it really works. The three principle characters shine, both in their interviews and in the water. As an athlete, Laird Hamilton is a revelation. He rises to the pinnacle of his sport in a way that I have only seen Michael Jordan do in basketball. And too, the story of his meeting his father is a gem. It really touched me.It is just that the movie could have been so much more. The very last part of the movie, when the credits roll, gives a hint of what it could have been. There are some beautiful panoramic shots of waves with a magnificent soundtrack. (The soundtrack in the rest of the movie is rubbish, though you may like it if you are fan of the modern, frenetic school of rock.) Anyway there's my two cents...


Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years.


Sadly, Marry Harron decided to do a fictional account of Bettie Page's life to go along with her own issues with men. As typical in all her work, every major male character is portrayed as weak, bumbling, or twisted. To add to her fiction, she projects ideas and issues that are not true, according to Bettie Page herself. Bettie did not leave the biz because she thought it was morally wrong or had religious issues (though she became a born-again later in life, through the influence of her 3rd husband- a minister). She left it, because she was in her late 30's, her acting career had gone nowhere and she felt she was losing her looks. The hints of molestation and rape are unvalidated and denied in Bettie's own words and are the director's attempts to claim that any woman who did what Bettie did must have been victimized by men. Harron fails to point out that Bettie designed her own clothes in almost all her shoots (not handed to her by "sick" fetishists). Harron also fails to make a point that Bunny Yeager, who did many famous photo shoots of Bettie, also did many "naughty" shoots with Bettie and was not the morally upright professional photographer portrayed in the film.The only saving grace is Gretchen Mol looks very much like Bettie. Otherwise, there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it.


There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!


Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.


Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.


Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become "Alias Smith and Jones". Mr. Wayne becomes "John Jones". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be "Rev. Smith", but Wayne calls him "Dr. Smith". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in "Our Gang", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.


This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.


The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it. As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.


I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.


Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.


Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREATI doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!


This is cult stuff. My friends and I get together once a year to enjoy this movie. Its very funny and very dry . I've seen this move dozens of times and have yet not to enjoy it.The actors are funny and it gets better with every viewing! If you enjoyed "Morons from out of Space" you will love this. A great play on War of the Worlds. I love the Red-Neck rampage to get the aliens, the bug on the hood, the DOD, the Heat Seeking Populous Annihilator, the Mine Field, the Red Camo, breaking the speed limit by 1800Mph! "I'll get the bucket!" Very Funny. I would love for this to come out on DVD! Forget the negative reviews see it for yourself!


Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to "Tarzan - Jane" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display.


In Paris, the shy and insecure bureaucrat Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) rents an old apartment without bathroom where the previous tenant, the Egyptologist Simone Choule (Dominique Poulange), committed suicide. The unfriendly concierge (Shelley Winters) and the tough landlord Mr. Zy (Melvyn Douglas) establish stringent rules of behavior and Trekovsky feels ridden by his neighbors. Meanwhile he visits Simone in the hospital and befriends her girlfriend Stella (Isabelle Adjani). After the death of Simone, Trekovsky feels obsessed for her and believes his landlord and neighbors are plotting a scheme to force him to also commit suicide. The weird "Le Locataire" is a disturbing and creepy tale of paranoia and delusion. The story and the process of madness and loss of identity of the lonely Trelkovsky are slowly developed in a nightmarish atmosphere in the gruesome location of his apartment, and what is happening indeed is totally unpredictable. The performances are awesome and Isabelle Adjani is extremely beautiful. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "O Inquilino" ("The Tenant")


Please make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! "Weird Science" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...I am "proud" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know...


Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden


The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....


"Mr. Harvey Lights a Candle" is anchored by a brilliant performance by Timothy Spall.While we can predict that his titular morose, up tight teacher will have some sort of break down or catharsis based on some deep down secret from his past, how his emotions are unveiled is surprising. Spall's range of feelings conveyed is quite moving and more than he usually gets to portray as part of the Mike Leigh repertory.While an expected boring school bus trip has only been used for comic purposes, such as on "The Simpsons," this central situation of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral in Rhidian Brook's script is well-contained and structured for dramatic purposes, and is almost formally divided into acts.We're introduced to the urban British range of racially and religiously diverse kids (with their uniforms I couldn't tell if this is a "private" or "public" school), as they gather  the rapping black kids, the serious South Asians and Muslims, the white bullies and mean girls  but conveyed quite naturally and individually. The young actors, some of whom I recognized from British TV such as "Shameless," were exuberant in representing the usual range of junior high social pressures. Celia Imrie puts more warmth into the supervisor's role than the martinets she usually has to play.A break in the trip leads to a transformative crisis for some while others remain amusingly oblivious. We think, like the teacher portrayed by Ben Miles of "Coupling," that we will be spoon fed a didactic lesson about religious tolerance, but it's much more about faith in people as well as God, which is why the BBC showed it in England at Easter time and BBC America showed it in the U.S. over Christmas.Nathalie Press, who was also so good in "Summer of Love," has a key role in Mr. Harvey's redemption that could have been played for movie-of-the-week preaching, but is touching as they reach out to each other in an unexpected way (unfortunately I saw their intense scene interrupted by commercials).While it is a bit heavy-handed in several times pointedly calling this road trip "a pilgrimage," this quiet film was the best evocation of "good will towards men" than I've seen in most holiday-themed TV movies.


Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10


Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why !


Yakitate! Ja-pan (translated as Fresh Baked! Japanese Bread) is the story of a young man named Azuma Kazuma and his journey to make the perfect Japanese Bread or Ja-pan, for Japan, and for the Japanese, that will be recognized the the whole world.Of course, that's just on the outside. In reality, Yakitate! Ja-pan isn't really about the bread, but the reaction that come after eating the bread, and the pun that comes with the reaction. The series is lovable because of these puns. From popular anime titles like Naruto, Detective Conan, and Dragon Ball to blockbuster movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. It's all there.So what makes this title different from other titles of the same genre like Cooking Master Boy or Mr. Ajikko? Well, unlike the others who use cooking for world domination, Yakitate! Ja-pan is purely comedy. Sure, there are times that the story turns to drama, or even murder, but the comedic atmosphere makes you laugh at them. You'll be laughing at their own view of heaven. Just watch it.Just remember that this is also fiction, although some of the bread made here are based on real bread, eating the home made Japan #2 won't turn you to a Super Saiyan or turn your body to rubber.


DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone.


Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.) On to the allegedly "random" monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking "hey maybe these guys can help me?" which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to "salvation". Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here. Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the "conference entrance", he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because "he's Kevin Finnerty". He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.After reading all the theories on "inFinnerty", though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out.


Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.


Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.


"Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"! Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling."Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland!


If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?This is one of the best of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the best that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's so perfectly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor can agree.Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment. He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist. It's the mark of a great comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned can be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.Other than Guinness the best performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK> Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever?


Spoilers.First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead  I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought  if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.


This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.


The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better..


This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero?


There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question.