I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies
until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses. The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help. There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways. The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law. The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say
 which is what the documentary did.What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.


I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10


A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.


I've noticed that a lot of people who post on the "Kerching!" board seem to hate this show, which I actually find very surprising. I think it's one of the best British kids' shows there is. It's a shame it's ending because it's very funny (if a bit cheesy sometimes) and has great characters. The main character is a little like Del Boy, although quite a lot smarter. With his 2 best friends he tried to make a million pounds for his mum by starting an online business and adopting a pseudonym of "Rudeboy". His friends are Seymour (who likes to cook) and Danny (who is simple minded and the comic relief character). Throughout the show, some characters have left and new ones have come in, but it's always been entertaining and improving.


I just watched this movie and have to say, I was very impressed. It's very creepy and has numerous moments that will make you jump out of seat! I had to smoke several "emergency" cigarettes along the way to calm my nerves! If I had to criticise, I'd say that perhaps if anything, there were too many jump moments. It got to the point where every single new scene climaxed with a jump and this gradually wore away the startling effect, because you kind of new what was coming.Although it contains virtually every cliché in the ghost genre, they were all done so well that it maintained the creepy, fear-factor. It had elements of The Shining, The 6th Sense and The Changeling (in particular, the soundtrack reminded me of The Changeling).I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned scare!


One of the greatest film I have seen this year.Last maybe before sun rise, which is also seen late at night alone in the lab. I like the idea of the film,which suggest free will of man and our weakness against fate.With time past by James and Kathryn are destined to fail and an indescribable sorrow comes. I do like the end. but a big question also comes. The virus shall not be released again, should it?In the last scene in the airport. Jose is sent back to meet James again by future scientists. When he tell him that scientists had already got his message and know someone else would spread the virus. And they two together meet Kathryn when Kathryn tell James the true man is DR. Goines assistant. So it is clearly Jose also get the true information about the virus,(James keep an eye on him at the time remember?) and he has teeth. So why everything is still happen?? Why future scientists don't do anything after the truth is revealed?? My biggest question after the film...


What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.


I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers. It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way. All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola. "Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential".


This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent.


I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's.


While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre.


I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, "problems" develop.It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947


This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.


Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.


The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token. Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.Highly Recommended.


I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.


What a disappointment! Piper Perabo is adorable, Tyra Banks is beautiful but pitiful as an actor and the talented and beautiful Maria Bello is wasted! Bello must have been embarrassed by some of the lines! The plot, script and premise is a joke!I'm not against silly movies, I think that Something About Mary is a masterpiece, but Coyote Ugly is a waste of 90 minutes........


Cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. Vanessa Redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love...This is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. Not bad as such but with Redgrave, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Clare Danes,Natasha Richardson,Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson,Hugh Darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance.Wait for Cable.


Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon did two movies together within two years. One is considered one of the great romantic films of all time, and the movie that made Olivier a great movie star (and gave Oberon her best performance role): WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The other is this film, made in England a year earlier. THE DIVORCE OF LADY X is a romantic comedy (as WUTHERING HEIGHTS is a romantic tragedy). Olivier is a lawyer, Everard Logan, who is a dynamic barrister, but is also a total misogynist. One night he checks into a hotel just ahead of a crowd of people. It is a very foggy night (the type of pea soup fog that London was known for up until a notorious "killer" fog in the 1950s), and the crowd (who'd been attending a party in the hotel) need beds. The management tries to get Logan to allow one or two socialite ladies to sleep on a couch and a day bed in his rooms, but he refuses. But he has not reckoned with Merle Oberon as Leslie Steele. The granddaughter of a high court judge, she manages to get into Logan's rooms and manipulates him to not only agree to her sleeping there, but appropriates his bed (he goes onto the couch - much to his discomfort).The next day they share a breakfast, and in the smalltalk it is evident that despite his mistrust of women Logan finds Leslie very attractive. But she kittenishly refuses to tell him her name. She is determined to learn more about him, and she finds his attitude toward women infuriating. In the meantime, Logan is approached by a wealthy nobleman (Ralph Richardson as Lord Mere) as a potential client. Mere suspects his wife Lady Mere (Binnie Barnes) of having an affair. In fact, he tells Logan her Ladyship was with her lover in the hotel that Logan knows he was in on the night of the fog. Logan (naturally) jumps to the conclusion that Lady Mere was his mysterious roommate that night. I will not go into the plot any further, except to say that Leslie eventually realizes what a mistake Logan has made, and decides to use it to teach him a lesson about women.The script has the feel of a Wodehouse novel, but is slighter. Still the performances of Olivier, Oberon, Richardson, Barnes, and Morton Selden (as Oberon's grandfather) are all splendid. It shows what a good cast can do with even the slightest of materials. Take a look at some of the minor scenes to see what I mean: Selden's first scene, complaining about his weak coffee to his butler/valet, who tells him off properly (they've been used to each other's personalities for years). Or Olivier dealing with a young clerk in his office, who is certain there were two Lady Meres in the office two minutes before (there were, but Oberon and Barnes left together), and ends up thinking the poor clerk is a simpleton. Or the waiter in the hotel who can't understand why the tenant in Olivier's room is constantly changing from a man to a woman to a man. As I said, a slight charming comedy - but it is very charming.


If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. ***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers "Z" goods!


This movie seems on the surface to be a run of mill kids movie that parents can regretfully watch with their mostly entertained little kids. The movie seems and is mostly geared towards children yet it does not stop on this level. I watched this movie first as a young child and found it to be funny, entertaining,and heartwarming and did not see it again for several years. I watched it again recently at age 18 and found it to be almost as funny but just as heartwarming and entertaining. This movie is highly underrated and contains many messages of real life. This movie is an inspirational quest story that is made for kids yet epic in its own right. I recommend this movie to anyone of any age.


I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us "inside the thinking" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just..."ends" in a snore.


Matt Cordell is back from the dead for a third go-round, although I'm not sure anyone cared at this point except for rabid MANICA COP fans. Cordell, who died in the last flick, is resurrected through voodoo, and is now hot on the trail of several miscreants involved in the shooting of a fellow officer Cordell is very fond of. I missed part of this early '90s low-budget quickie, but it was pleasing to see Cordell wracking up the body count in various, gruesome ways. Problem is, the overall film is pretty static, and Cordell simply ain't Jason or Freddy. The interest wanes pretty fast, even with that grand B-movie master Robert Forster as a doctor who ends up with his brains scrambled. Stick with the first film in the series, which is funny and scary and exciting, all at the same time.


OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??*end of the thing...*that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.


Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb!


NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect. Just avoid this "comedy". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire.


Fassbinder's most lavish production sacrifices little of his talent for identifying and deconstructing a locus of suffering in long, mobile takes that somehow also act as social encapsulations; here, it's much more overt, since the story takes place in war-torn Germany at the end of WWII, and the central character is a woman (Hanna Schygulla as Maria) who capitalizes on vulnerabilities (both economic and gender-related) to catapult herself up the ladder of a prominent textile corp. that makes coveted goods like lederhosen available to indigent workers (as she once was). Married amidst allied air raids, Maria and her new husband Herrmann are allowed a brief honeymoon before he's shipped out to the Russian front. In his absence, her despair is great: she spends most days at the train station, waiting for him to return. When he is reported dead, she abruptly stops grieving and takes a job as a barmaid/prostitute at a brothel catering to American GI's.When he returns, things get plenty messy, as circumstances (and his sense of noble self-sacrifice) conspire to keep them apart. The message is Fassbinder's M.O. writ large: 'Love is colder than death,' but not only is Maria contending with her own sanity and a husband largely incapable of loving her, but a country in deep flux with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. Fassbinder is making some kind of statement on post-war Germany selling out to the highest bidder, but as with all his films, I tend to block those elements out and focus on the unbearable passions on display: Fassbinder's as evoked through his characters; his actors' as filtered through their real-life connections with Fassbinder. Taken together, his films can be either unbearable or indescribably mesmeric, often at once; this falls somewhere in-between, although definitely closer to the latter. While I didn't like it quite as much as The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Katzelmacher, Maria Braun certainly has a greater scope and what's more, I could feel its passion and authentic detail to human emotions.


I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!


I had the misfortune of wasting 10 quid buying SS new movie on DVD: Attack Force. Now i usually can suspend my belief watching films like this. A pinch of salt and some beers on a dark evening on the sofa watching a noisy late evening shoot em up is perfect for a single alpha male like me. I bought this film thinking I'd see cool martial arts and shoot em up.Did i hell. Segal is old and bloated, the plot was ludicrous even by SS standards and to cap it all off Segal's acting (such as it was to start with) is exceptionally dire. So dire in fact that half of his voice was dubbed over by a man who sounded NOTHING LIKE HIM. Either SS cant act no more (a moot point) of the crew were so dreadful at their jobs they couldn't record the sound properly. The voice would flick back and forth between Mr Whisper Segal and the man who does voice overs for Honda adverts!Plot wise isn't the issue because most action films work along the same premise as this one, nothing new there. The usual mix of characters who will die horribly as cannon fodder and stereotyped bad guys waiting to get blown away.Avoid this film like you would avoid walking in front of a speeding train or a dose of H5N1 avian flu.Utter garbage.1/10This has been a public health warning.


Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.


I wasn't at all a fan of the 2005 gore fest hit "Hostel", and most of these lame ass knock-offs are just as bad or worse - yet "Live Feed" managed to keep me somewhat entertained for about the first 30 minutes. Started off with plenty of sex and sleazy settings, followed by some good death scenes involving the Chinese Organized Crime Squad and a 7-foot, leather-aproned butcher... What put me out of the movie was the tough 'hero' with the guns and a grudge saving the day... I would call this movie mediocre, at best, since a premise mainly involving obnoxious young people being slaughtered in a seedy porno theater, doubling as a hideout for the mafia, is appealing to me. If only the torture was prolonged enough to be thoroughly effective, then my rating would have differed greatly. Unfortunately, most of the gruesomeness is heaped together in one scene, leaving the rest of the movie to conclude as a revenge-type scenario. So, basically, it IS just a low-budget "Hostel" rip-off with the redeeming use of gratuitous sex, almost constant during the first half of the film... Overall, I would say don't bother with this one.


One of the best musicals ever made, this is an example of where the producers and director were not afraid to pick actors for their talent, rather than for what people might expect. The lighting and set are unique, giving it a very interesting effect (this has a special name that I cannot think of). The dialog is also unique in that no contractions are used. The movie is well paced, beautifully acted and interesting from start to finish. A real joy is the MUSIC. Such an array of first-rate songs, from beginning to end, that are perfectly performed and orchestrated. Also, the music is very original and very memorable, and I think superior to many musicals from the thirties through the sixties. It certainly has more original and beautiful songs than most musicals, that might have only two or three. Not bad for a director with no experience in this type of movie. Another quality is that it is fresh each time one sees it.


Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few "Jim Carrey moments", it's definitely not a "Jim Carrey movie".It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience!


If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film."Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.


Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.


Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.


Film can be a looking glass to see the world in a new light. Good Night and Good Luck, for instance, offered parallels to modern judgement-without-evidence and encroachments on freedom. It is easier to examine a moral problem when it is not too close to home: by putting it in a fictional or historic context removed from our immediate situation. With pornography, we consider ourselves 'enlightened' and our forefathers to be hidebound by quaint ideas - usually involving fire and brimstone, but the definition of what is obscene can easily fall prey to ignorance and unscientific interpretation instead of evidence. Bettie Page was a cult icon of an era which included not just McCarthyism but the banning of comics (such as Tales from the Crypt) on the basis that they would turn youths into half-mad juvenile delinquents. This film, developed from key questions raised in her life, poses dilemmas that are as relevant today as back in 1950.Our film opens with two key scenes. In the first, we see well-dressed, respectable looking men in a seedy bookshop. One of them asks for pictures of women in kinky boots and being restrained - then turns out to be an undercover cop conducting a sting. The second scene shows Bettie Page, waiting to be called as a witness, looking quite demure, as if she had just come out of church.The first 50mins are in black & white. Old fashioned film effects such as wipes and fades add to the sense that we are watching a film from bygone years, as do the mannerisms of the cast, skilfully recreated 1950s scenes, contemporaneous slang phrases and the terse dialogue associated with film-making of the period. Archive footage is frequently intercut - which will delight many and irritate others. In keeping with its theme, the movie is almost a collection of different types of photography-in-motion, and the older clips of fabulous beaches and landmarks juxtapose well against Bettie's classic poses hearken back to an age of 'health & nature' magazines . . . although I admit that if you are not captivated by the story you may find the effect a bit choppy.Very soon, we go into flashback. Bettie escapes a Depression Years downtrodden life in Nashville, enlivened only with church singing and soul-saving, and goes alone to make her own way. After her initial success, her modelling work splits into two strands: the mainstream glamour work focussing on her over-the-rainbow smile, and the 'specialist interest' photos involving dressing up in high-heeled boots and light bondage gear. In an earlier audition (reminiscent of a scene with Naomi Watts' character in Mulholland Drive - who was also called Betty), she gives a performance that is full of emotion, contrasting with her normal animated, cheerful (but ultimately bland) day-to-day expression. Is part of her still unfulfilled? Bettie is frequently rejected in auditions once they realise she is the well-known pin-up girl. But we have never been asked to feel sorry for Bettie Page: her abusive childhood is quickly referenced and skipped over; when she is raped by four hometown lads, we see only the threat and then Bettie recovering and surviving, picking herself up in deserted woodland, and putting on the brave face of someone who refuses to lie down and die.Although no nudity is involved, it's Bettie's special interest photos that eventually arouse trouble. When we go back to the court, the opinions of a clergyman on the corrupting influence of such photos are taken as evidence. A psychologist authoritatively says how the photos lead to 'suicide, murder and psychosis' in youngsters who are exposed to them (presumably not in that order). Eventually a star witness explains how his son's life came to an end as a result of such photos - 'being 'trussed up like that'. It is not made clear how being 'trussed up' causes death). The text accompanying a series of Bettie's photographs in a magazine tell how she was forced to endure 'terrible agonies' with the fetish restraints (the audience knows that she actually found them quite hilarious and that the wordings, like the photos themselves, were pure dramatisations). After a 12hr wait, Bettie is told her evidence - she is the one person who could state definitively that she was not photographed in agony - will 'not be required'. The 'horrors' of the photos have been proved.If this all sounds like the dark ages which we have left, consider a recent (2003) incident in which an Ann Summers advert was banned. It said, "for fashion and passion whip along to your local store," with a photograph of a woman's back. She's wearing a bra and thong and her hands are handcuffed behind her back. The lingerie and sex toys company, that targets female consumers (and also supports charities fighting domestic violence) said its adverts aimed, "to give women sexual confidence and always showed women in control of their sexuality." One might conclude that the prejudice and ignorance of the Betty Page investigations still holds currency.Bettie's religious views are integral to the story, just as the concept of sin is integral to Christianity and contributes to the 'forbidden' nature of sexual enjoyment frequently prevalent in the UK and US - as opposed to the more factual approach found in continental Europe. It could be argued the formulae of sin and redemption, and "being saved", are even reflected in mating patterns that perpetuate traditional male dominance. A policeman making a friendly (but sexually motivated) approach to Bettie outside the courtroom offers to 'save' her from loneliness. The knight-in-shining-armour might be chivalrous, but it also assumes a woman in need of rescue.Love it or hate it, The Notorious Bettie Page is an unusual and extraordinary film, and a moral wake-up call for those that heed it. There is excellent ensemble acting, and Gretchen Mol, as Bettie, is remarkable as the whole film succeeds or falls on her powerful performance.


'Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers. The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved.


Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.


The movie itself made me want to go and call someone so they could enjoy it too. It was extremely funny. Angelena Jolie was wonderful as Juliet. The parents are hilarious.They are caterers as well as enemies.The kids play the parts of Romeo and Juliet in the church play.They fall in love and their parents try to keep them apart.(Spoiler Ahead. I think) They sneak off after a party and do it. Surprisingly they still want to get married in the end of the movie. If you don't like stereotypes and the defilement of classic literature don't watch. If you don't mind those you will have a blast watching this one.


The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Peliky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.


Masters of Horror: The Screwfly Solution starts as America is being infected by an airborne virus that affects the male population, when aroused men indiscriminately kill any woman in sight apparently in the name of God. Scientist Alan (Jasn Priestley) is brought in by the Government & knows more than most & senses the situation may have gone too far already so he tells his wife Anne (Kerry Norton) to take their teenage daughter Amy (Brenna O'Brien) & try to survive as the future of the human race may depend on them...This Canadian American co-production was episode 7 from season 2 of the Masters of Horrror TV series, directed by Joe Dante I thought The Screwfly Solution was pretty bad. I personally think the script by Sam Hamm sucks, it takes itself far too seriously & I don't really understand why it's part of the Masters of Horror series, the horror that the filmmakers are going for in The Screwfly Solution is in the actual story itself & themes & ideas it brings up rather than on screen visual horror particularly the tenuous ecological message it sees intent on ramming down our throats whenever it's gets the chance during it's short 60 odd minute running time which I felt itself was a problem as the thing just finishes out of what could easily be interpreted as necessity rather than any meaningful attempt to wrap things up. I wasn't happy with the inconsistencies with the story either, if men only kill when sexually aroused why does the flight attendant casually break that woman's neck on the plane? Was he sexually aroused, I think not. Why does every bloke then think he's killing in the name of God? I just can't see every single bloke on Earth suddenly knowing the Bible & starting to believe in God, I just found the notion ridiculous & the show also states clearly that there's nothing religious about what's going on so what's the deal with everyone thinking they have a divine to murder any woman they see? Then there's the fact people get turned on by different things, what about gays for instance? Will they kill guys instead of women? I know there's a brief scene which makes a joke out of the gay issue but it's conveniently brushed to one side & then there's the thing which annoyed me the most. The fact that presumably every bloke on earth has turned psycho & killed all the women they go about their everyday business like nothing ever happened, it just felt so stupid, the plotting is rubbish & to round things off there's a ending which looks like it was taken from a rejected episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) with a bright neon alien.Director Dante on this showing definitely doesn't qualify as a Master of Horror as far a I'm concerned, the story is badly paced, it's just so stupid considering it's played deadly straight & instead of trying to make a proper horror show he turns in more of a thriller with it's deadly virus on the loose situation & the subsequent mother & daughter on the run because of it, there's very little here in the way of what I would call effective horror & even less gore. There's a scene when a woman is stabbed with a broken bottle, a brief scene after when a guy stabs his own groin with said bottle & another woman is stabbed in the stomach but nothing else to write home about.Technically like the other episodes it's really good & it doesn't have the look of a cheap TV series, the special effects are great as usual & it's well made. The acting is alright but no-one really stood out.The Screwfly Solution is easily the worst Masters of Horror episode I've seen but bear in mind I haven't seen all of them... yet. As a stand alone piece of entertainment it did nothing for me & as a show made by a so-called Master of Horror it disappoints me even more.


Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended!


The Wooden Horse is a very clever movie about a very clever and successful escape plan worked out by British POW's during World War II. It is superbly acted with a wry sense of humor, especially the lines expressed by the acid-tongues Leo Genn. Anthony Steele and David Tomlinson (later George Banks in Mary Poppins) are marvelous as the two heroes. The direction is taut and fast-moving throughout. Highly Recommended.


Can Scarcely Imagine a Better Movie Than ThisHey, before you all go "Chick Flick" on me. I am a very Large Strong & Masculine, Macho Man, who happens to think this was one of the better movies of the last 20 years. The acting was Superb and the Story was Marvelous. This is wonderful medicine for the heart and soul. The Acting could not have been better nor the movie better cast. I have known for a Good while that Mercedes Ruehl, along with Holly Hunter, Joan Plowright, Dame Edith Evans, Sissy Spacek, Judi Dench is among the greatest actresses ever to appear on film. And of course Cloris Leachman (also in this film) in my view may in fact exceed them all in the shear magnum of her talent and varied roles she has appeared in over the years.. At any rate this was an Amazing cast. This film was like a book that you cannot lay down, and when you have reached the last page wish for more...still more. I cannot for the life of me understand why this film here on the IMDb only rates a 3.9That rating here is utterly Amazing to me. Or perhaps not. Perhaps in fact I do understand it ever so well and that is what makes me really sad. It makes me ever so sad that films like "American Beauty" "Leaving Las Vegas" "Sexy Beast" and "Fight Club" ratings skyrocket off the charts in popularity when they in fact at least in this viewers opinion should have received an "R" rating...R that is for "Rubbish". Hey o.k., I realize there are a lot of different stories in this world for a lot of different audiences, but it is a sad commentary when this lovely, powerful...extraordinarily, Directed, Acted, and written film seems to be over looked. It obviously was at the Academy Awards as well....How Sad. And How predictable. My summation is that if you want to see a powerful, Happy, Sad, beautiful story? watch ......preferably own this film...


No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.


This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.


Bizarre horror movie filled with famous faces but stolen by Cristina Raines (later of TV's "Flamingo Road") as a pretty but somewhat unstable model with a gummy smile who is slated to pay for her attempted suicides by guarding the Gateway to Hell! The scenes with Raines modeling are very well captured, the mood music is perfect, Deborah Raffin is charming as Cristina's pal, but when Raines moves into a creepy Brooklyn Heights brownstone (inhabited by a blind priest on the top floor), things really start cooking. The neighbors, including a fantastically wicked Burgess Meredith and kinky couple Sylvia Miles & Beverly D'Angelo, are a diabolical lot, and Eli Wallach is great fun as a wily police detective. The movie is nearly a cross-pollination of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist"--but what a combination! Based on the best-seller by Jeffrey Konvitz, "The Sentinel" is entertainingly spooky, full of shocks brought off well by director Michael Winner, who mounts a thoughtfully downbeat ending with skill. ***1/2 from ****


Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in "Diva Las Vegas". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing "Stay With Me" from her 1979 movie "The Rose". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums.


I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimatelook at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forgetsociety and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a hugebrood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rathermundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of aFellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie isalmost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishesgrowing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. Sheprances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-likeheaddress around her head, completely covering her hair. Wenever see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hintthat she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is stillbeautiful and full of life.In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women'slives have become much less than what they once were. LittleEdie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in herearlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously andeven made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she singsalong with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago isone of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as amodel to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed tofind her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romanticbliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where LittleEdie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliverscene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incrediblycandid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcablesince it's all real.I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the KennethAnger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it'sworth every penny.


Why in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins.


....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!


I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.


I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?!


This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion.


This movie was excellent. I was not expecting it to live up to all the hype but it did. Like all the Bourne movies the action is fast paced, realistic and intense. If you liked the other two movies in the trilogy you will love this one also. The movie's plot is straightforward and there are no plot twists that are too unrealistic. OK, Julia Stiles character showing up in the Italian safe house was kind of far-fetched especially after what happened in Supremacy but it makes sense that she is the only character in "Treadstone" that Bourne knows, that does not want him dead and he could possibly trust and the only person to lead him in the right direction. The action is driven by characters and their reactions to what is happening all around them. The thing that I always loved about the Bourne movies is that Bourne can kick butt but when matched with people as good as he is the fights are struggles and he takes a lot of damage in them. They never treat the audience like idiots.All the actors were solid in their performances. I believe that Damon could play Bourne in his sleep and receives excellent support from Joan Allen reprising her role from Supremacy, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn. I recommend this film and the trilogy. I do miss Franka Potente though.


*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) *McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly "classic Seventies cinema", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the "dark brown glow" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying "Altman-esque" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10.


This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled "Disappearances". I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street.


I consider this film to be the best one about Mike Hammer, with Biff Elliott's performance the definitive Mike Hammer. Harry Essex's script is excellent and contains many improvements on Mickey Spillane's novel. His direction is strong and imaginative, and he makes fine use of light and shadow. The camera work by John Alton is top-notch, as is the score by Franz Waxman. The cast includes many veteran players, as well as Peggie Castle in her memorable performance as Charlotte Manning. All in all, this is one of the finest private eye films ever made. Biff Elliott and Haary Essex should have received more opportunities. I have always treasured this film.


I happened on "Shower" in the foreign film section of my local video store and passed it over several times since from its cover it looked like a farce or comedy. I then lucked into a copy to purchase at economical price and am happy for my luck. "Shower" is the story of three(3) men, a father and two(2) adult sons, each coming to terms with life changes as the world around them also continues to change in modern China. As with many "foreign" films, the Chinese culture itself is one of the most interesting facets of this movie.Beyond the fascinating characteristics of the local, Chinese color giving the setting to this story, is the difficult yet touching relationships between the men and a sole woman involved in the story, all set against the backdrop of a village bathhouse.The family's story moves from estrangement to understanding and made me glad I came to know these people. Added to the main story are the numerous small characters, bathhouse customers, and their individual conflicts and friendships. "Shower" is a film one walks away from smiling and touched by its warmth and humanity.


For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer. Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work. It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again. The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.


If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it "shellshocked" now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie "paths of glory", the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more.


Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this "modern" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the "Twinkle in Your Eye" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all.


Somewhere near the bottom of the film studio ladder you can find companies like U.F.O, Troma and beneath them lie Seduction cinema.Seduction is a direct to video production company that specialize in lesbian themed, non-hardcore erotic movies. It has developed a very dedicated fan base that purchase each new title as they are released but sadly the company has become too closely associated with frequent star Misty Mundae. I say sadly because recent mainstream interest and her appearance on the show Masters of Horrors has caused her to set her sights a little higher than the zero budget S.C efforts which forces the company to find a new identity. But back in their glory days they released this film on a very appreciative world.The gorgeous Misty Mundae is forced to attend a boarding school at the request of a absent father. At the school she meets her absurdly hot room-mate played by Ruby Larocca who immediately has designs on her but the headmistress (Barbara Joyce) has other plans. In typical S.C style the movie stops every ten minutes for a extended sex scene but unlike most of their efforts this one has a somewhat interesting story and a couple of good performances. Ms. Larocca appears to be having a great time as the sexual predator who views Misty as a tasty meal and Darian Caine makes a welcome (though brief) appearance as Satan. This is the sort of film that Jess Franco would crank out in the 70s (although this one does not have the hardcore sex that Franco was always willing to throw in for foreign sales) and fans of that madman's work would be wise to give this one a go.To me, as a long time zero budget cinema fan (and Troma worshiper), I came across the Seduction cinema films through their parody films (Playmate of the apes, Who wants to be a erotic billionaire) but I actually prefer their more original works. You either see past the low budget and occasionally weak acting or you get hung up on these things and just hate all of these films. For me the most obvious thing that unites these no-budget movies is a real sense of fun. These low budget companies are able to create their own unique style which gives the viewer something very different from the bland, by the numbers, studio efforts that load up the multiplexes.If you have never seen a Seduction cinema film either this or Sin Sisters (featuring both of the Mundae sisters) are excellent choices to begin with. This one is a fun, fast paced film (although the frequent exterior shots of the school do get a little old) and the DVD is totally loaded with extras including a ton of previews of other company offerings, a great behind the scenes featurette and some deleted scenes including a alternate opening. I do recommend you pass on the disc's bonus feature, the first film by director, as it is quite weak and not really worth viewing.


THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is one of the sweetest and most feel-good romantic comedies ever made. There's just no getting around that, and it's hard to actually put one's feeling for this film into words. It's not one of those films that tries too hard, nor does it come up with the oddest possible scenarios to get the two protagonists together in the end. In fact, all its charm is innate, contained within the characters and the setting and the plot... which is highly believable to boot. It's easy to think that such a love story, as beautiful as any other ever told, *could* happen to you... a feeling you don't often get from other romantic comedies, however sweet and heart-warming they may be. Alfred Kralik (James Stewart) and Clara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) don't have the most auspicious of first meetings when she arrives in the shop (Matuschek & Co.) he's been working in for the past nine years, asking for a job. They clash from the very beginning, mostly over a cigarette box that plays music when it's opened--he thinks it's a ludicrous idea; she makes one big sell of it and gets hired. Their bickering takes them through the next six months, even as they both (unconsciously, of course!) fall in love with each other when they share their souls and minds in letters passed through PO Box 237. This would be a pretty thin plotline to base an entire film on, except that THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is expertly fleshed-out with a brilliant supporting cast made up of entirely engaging characters, from the fatherly but lonely Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) himself, who learns that his shop really is his home; Pirovitch (Felix Bressart), Kralik's sidekick and friend who always skitters out of the room when faced with the possibility of being asked for his honest opinion; smarmy pimp-du-jour Vadas (Joseph Schildkraut) who ultimately gets his comeuppance from a gloriously righteous Kralik; and ambitious errand boy Pepi Katona (William Tracy) who wants nothing more than to be promoted to the position of clerk for Matuschek & Co. The unpretentious love story between 'Dear Friends' is played out in this little shop in Budapest, Hungary, in which Kralik's unceremonious dismissal and subsequent promotion to shop manager help the two lovebirds-to-be along. It's nice that everyone gets a story in this film; the supporting characters are well-developed, and Matuschek's own journey in life is almost as touching as the one Alfred and Clara share. His invitation to new errand boy Rudy (Charles Smith) for Christmas Eve dinner, made in the whirling, beautiful snow of a Hungarian winter, makes the audience glad that he is not alone; we come to care even for the characters whose love story it isn't this film's business to tell. Aside from the love story, I must say that James Stewart is truly one of the best things about this film. He doesn't play the full-fledged Jimmy Stewart persona in this film (c/f 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington' for that); in fact Alfred Kralik is prickly and abrupt and not particularly kind. He's rather a brusque man, in fact, with little hint (until, perhaps, the very end) of the aw-shucks down-home boyish charm Stewart would soon come to patent. When he finds out before Clara that they have been corresponding in secret, in fact, Kralik doesn't 'fess up--he waits it out to see how far he can take the charade, especially since he quickly realises (given his stormy relationship with Clara as boss and underling) that loving the person he knows through the exchanged letters might not equate with loving the person herself. His description to Clara of the fictional Matthias Popkin (what a name!) who was to become her fiance is hilarious in the extreme, but also his way of proving that the letters don't reveal all there is to a man, just as her letters don't reveal all there is to her. Stewart plays this role perfectly--he keeps his face perfectly controlled whenever Clara insults Mr. Kralik, as she is often wont to do, even (and especially) to his face. And yet one believes, underneath the brusqueness and professionalism, that he *could* reveal his identity with as much earnestness and sincerity and sheer *hope* as he eventually does. Special mention must be given to the other members of the cast as well. Margaret Sullavan fares rather less well in the first half of the film, but she really comes into her own in the closing-shop scene on Christmas Eve, when she almost gets her heart broken again by Alfred's most vivid description of her mailbox sweetheart. Frank Morgan turns in a great performance as the jealous Hugo Matuschek driven to nervous breakdown, the man who has to rediscover his meaning in life when he realises that his wife of 22 years does not want to 'grow old with him'. And Felix Bressart plays the role of the meek but loyal Pirovitch wonderfully (a Lubitsch regular, since he appears as a hilarious Russian ambassador in NINOTCHKA)--of particular note is the scene in which he helps his good friend Alfred get the Christmas present the latter *really* wants... a wallet instead of that ludicrous cigarette box Clara is so hung up on. Ernst Lubitsch really does himself proud with this film--for example, the famously lavish and meticulous care given to detail in the creation of the Matuschek shop is well worth the effort, right down to the Hungarian names on the door, the wares and the cash register and so on. But even though Lubitsch chose to have the story set in Hungary, the setting is actually universal: it could happen anywhere; it could happen to you. Therein lies the charm of this simple story, these believable characters who really *are* people. The snow on Christmas Eve is real as well, or at least as real as Lubitsch could make it (he had snow machines brought in at great expense). It is this desire to make everything appear as real as possible that helps make the story even more believable, that gives this entire film a dreamy realism that cannot be replicated. (No, not even in a remake like YOU'VE GOT MAIL.) *This* is really the Jimmy Stewart Christmas film that people are missing out on when they talk about IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Not to detract from the merits of that other film, but there'd be no harm, and in fact a lot of good, done in watching THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER this Christmas instead. It's sweet, funny, charming, and Stewart is impeccable in his role. We should all be so lucky as to have the romance depicted in this film; the best thing about this film is that we come away from it feeling that we very possibly could.


What a fantastic premise: A movie about the Berlin Airlift. It should have it all. Tragedy. Suspense. Comradeship. Rivals. Berliner Frauleins and tough US pilots. love and Tears. What we've got, is a film with none of the above. Heino Ferch tries to impersonate John Wayne or so, but he fails miserably. He acts so wooden, that at any given moment he should crack. He tries to play the tough guy, instead of being a tough guy! Why would Bettina Zimmermann's character fall in love with him? Cause they were throwing stones in a lake? Cause he brings her coal bricks? The SFX are very, very well done. Too much though. The hundreds or so planes over Berlin, look like an attack-fighter-formation-squadron rather than an organised airlift  as it actually was. Interestingly enough, the White House, the Kremlin, and General Lucius D. Clays office seem all to be one and the same dark and dusty set. Notice the same drapes, hanging deep down the windows, as if a protective shield against nuclear fallout. Why is almost every scene INSIDE dark and dusty? By the way, GENERAL LUCIUS D. CLAY, comes across as a small time, insecure, looser General, who doest trust in his own noble idea the airlift. He was very much the opposite. So you combine all those individual blunders and the result is a film with that builds toward no passion, no suspense and no historic accuracy. Sad, it started out so promising