"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.Rino Di Silvestro's "La lupa mannara" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening "flashback" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.As a film, "Werewolf Woman" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players.


All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines "do not compute". They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it.


- When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.


Despite some negative comments this film has garnered in the IMDb pages, it's still worth a look as this is a story about survival and camaraderie between two different men with different mentalities while in a difficult mission in the Panamanian jungle.Peruvian director Luis Llosa takes us along to watch this thriller set in Panama. The film has some good moments as Beckett, the veteran marine, takes a newly arrived man, recently sent to try to eliminate a notorious drug cartel head and the corrupt army general who might be the next president of the country. The only problem, Miller, has no experience in what he has been entrusted to achieve.Miller, the arrogant newly arrived man to the jungle and to the guerrilla warfare between the military and drug lords against the infiltrated American intelligence men, learns a valuable lesson from Beckett. What looks good in theory, is irrelevant in the jungle.Tom Berenger, is an actor who doesn't register much, as he proves in this movie, but in the context of the movie, he is right as a man of a few words. Billy Zane playing Miller does what he can with a role that doesn't afford him any glory until the crucial end.For lovers of action film, "Sniper" offers an 112 minutes of action that with a bit of trimming would have made a more satisfying movie.


I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!


First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions). I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured)


This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.


Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.


Mary Pickford ("Born on the Fourth of July" as Angela Moore) is "The Little American" (of French heritage); she falls in love with Jack Holt (as Karl Von Austreim), who had moved to America with his German father and American mother. French-American Raymond Hatton (as Count Jules de Destin of the "Fighting Destins") has fallen in love with Ms. Pickford. The love triangled threesome eventually wind up in France, with the Great War (World War I, in hindsight) complicating their lives considerably.A mostly entertaining, if propagandistically flawed, Cecil B. DeMille film. The torpedoing, and sinking, of a ship carrying Pickford is "Titanic"-like. The war intrigue gets dramatic as Pickford slowly becomes an undercover spy for France, while the Germans occupy her ancestral home. Of course, German lover Holt arrives. It was difficult to believe they took so long to recognize each other as he moved in for the rape, but it was dark; and, prior events had them believe each other dead. The film goes WAY over-the-top in its symbolism. Pickford was, by the way, Canadian - though, few could deny she wasn't a "Little American", for all intents and purposes.FUN to spot "extras" who later became major stars include Wallace Beery, Colleen Moore, and Ramon Novarro - especially, watch for Mr. Novarro exhibiting "star" quality during one of the film's more memorable sequences: Pickford and the wounded soldier saluting each other as he is taken by her on a stretcher. Novarro even gets Mary Pickford to write a letter for him; obviously, he's got a future in pictures. Also future-bound is Ben Alexander, who plays the boy "Bobby"; he becomes a dependable child actor, and grows up to become a Jack Webb partner on "Dragnet". ******* The Little American (7/12/17) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Mary Pickford, Jack Holt, Raymond Hatton


On 24 October 1955, the hard-work geologist of the Hadley Oil Company Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) meets the executive secretary Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall) in the office of her boss Bill Ryan in New York and invites her to go to a conference with the alcoholic playboy and son of a tycoon Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). On the way of the meeting, he confesses that they had traveled from Houston to New York to satisfy the wish of the reckless Kyle, who is his best friend since their childhood, of eating a sandwich from club 21 and the meeting was just a pretext to Kyle's father Jasper Hadley (Robert Keith). Mitch and Kyle immediately fall in love for Lucy, and Kyle unsuccessfully uses his money to impress Lucy; then he opens his heart and proposes Lucy. They get married and travel to Acapulco and the insecure Kyle stops drinking. Meanwhile, Kyle's sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone) is an easy woman and has a non- corresponded crush on Mitch that sees her as a sister. One year later, Kyle discovers that he has a problem and might be sterile and starts drinking again. The jealous Marylee poisons Kyle telling that his wife and Mitch are having a love affair. When Lucy finds that she is pregnant, Kyle believes that the baby belongs to Mitch and his mistrust leads to a tragedy. "Written on the Wind" is an overrated melodramatic soap opera, with artificial characters and situations. There are at least two great movies with characters with drinking problem: "The Lost Weekend" (1945) with stunning performance of Ray Milland and "Days of Wine and Roses" (1962) with awesome performance of Jack Lemmon. Robert Stack has a reasonable performance and his character's motives for drinking are shallow and clichés. In the end, the forgettable "Written on the Wind" is entertaining only and never a feature to be nominated to the Oscar. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Palavras ao Vento" ("Words in the Wind")


At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour.


I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the "retro hacker" perfectly. "O Nolo Mio"!!!!!


Hobgoblins....Hobgoblins....where do I begin?!?This film gives Manos - The Hands of Fate and Future War a run for their money as the worst film ever made. This one is fun to laugh at, where as Manos was just painful to watch. Hobgoblins will end up in a time capsule somewhere as the perfect movie to describe the term: "80's cheeze". The acting (and I am using this term loosely) is atrocious, the Hobgoblins are some of the worst puppets you will ever see, and the garden tool fight has to be seen to be believed. The movie was the perfect vehicle for MST3K, and that version is the only way to watch this mess. This movie gives Mike and the bots lots of ammunition to pull some of the funniest one-liners they have ever done. If you try to watch this without the help of Mike and the bots.....God help you!!


The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.


I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.


Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.Larissa


New York I Love You is full of love and power. Not for everybody, however, but is a beautiful movie.It has the likes of Shia LaBeouf (seen in Transformers, Disturbia, Charlies Angels, I Robot, Indiana Jones, and many more), Maggie Q, Kevin Bacon, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, and many more. With a star-studded cast, this movie is without a doubt, brilliant.From many top-notch directors around the world, it does not fail to impress. The diversity from one story to another is creative and unique.It is safe to say that New York I Love You is a popcorn movie, and should be watched on a BIG TV! This time, trust the IMDb rating, because it is an excellent film.Eagerly waiting Shanghai I Love You in 2010. Watch NY ILY, you won't be disappointed.


'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.


These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!


What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her "Moonlighting" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with "Fried Green Tomatoes" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with "Dirty Dancing", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to "Three Men and A Baby" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed!


Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.The last credit in this film explains its appeal - "Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed." A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love.


I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!Book was so much better!


Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.3/10


Spoiler alert  although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can
 It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.


This movie is up there with the all-time classics. The music, camera shots, and acting are excellent. Showing the movie in black and white gave it a much better appearance and complemented the music perfectly, like Psycho. Its surprising how so few people have commented on this movie. My guess is that its a hard movie to find. I gave the film a 9. See the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about.


A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.Best Regards /Rick


After all, you do not go to an Orson Welles movie to see a nice simple little plot and a burnishing of the image of a happy-ever-after star
You go to see theatrically heightened characters locked in conflict against colorful and unusual settings, lighted and scored imaginatively, photographed bravely, and the whole thing peppered with unexpected details of surprise that a wiser and duller director would either avoid or not think of in the first place
 As usual, as well as directing, Welles wrote the script and he also played the hero  a young Irish seaman who had knocked about the world and seen its evil, but still retained his clear-eyed trust in the goodness of others
 Unfortunately for him, he reposed this trust in Rita Hayworth, whose cool good looks concealed a gloomy past and murderous inclinations for the future
 She was married without love, to an impotent, crippled advocate, acted like a malevolent lizard by the brilliant Everett Sloane
 There is a youthful romanticism underlying it all, and this quality came into exuberant play in "The Lady from Shanghai." Before the inevitable happened, Welles escaped  to a final triangular showdown in a hall of mirrors, which has become one of the classic scenes of the post-war cinema
 Welles did not miss a chance throughout the whole film to counterpoint the words and actions with visual detail which enriched the texture and heightened the atmosphere
 His camera seemed almost to caress Rita Hayworth as the sun played with her hair and her long limbs while she playfully teased the young seaman into her web


This is one of the best animated family films of all time. Moreover, virtually all of the serious rivals for this title came from the same creative mind of Hiyao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli. Specifically, other great films include "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kikki's Delivery Service." Spirited Away is quite good, but a bit too creepy for typical family fare - better for teenagers and adult. The one thing that sets "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" apart from other films by Miyazaki is that it is far more of a tension-filled adventure ride.Why is this film so good? Because it's a complete package: the animation is very well done, and the story is truly engaging and compelling.Most Japanese anime is imaginative, but decidedly dark or cynical or violent; and the animation itself is often jerky, stylized, and juvenile. None of these problems plague Castle in the Sky. It has imagination to burn, and the characters are well drawn, if slightly exaggerated versions of realistic people. (None of those trench-coat wearing posers) There is plenty of adventure, but not blood and gore. The animation is smooth, detailed, and cinematic ally composed - not a lot of flat shots. The backgrounds are wonderful.The voice acting in the dubbed English version is first rate, particularly the two leads, Pazo (James Van der Beek) and Sheeta (Anna Paquin). The sound engineering is great, too. Use your studio sound, if you've got it.One aspect that I particularly enjoyed is that much of the back story is left unexplained. Laputa was once inhabited, and is now abandoned. Why? We never know. We know as much as we need to know, and then we just have to accept the rest, which is easy to do because the invented world is so fully realized. Indeed, it is fair to say that the world is more fully realized than most of the minor characters, who are for the most part one-dimensional stock characters (e.g., gruff general, silly sidekick, kooky old miner, etc.) Highly recommended for people aged 6 to 60!


A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the "happy go lucky" attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller.


This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.***Careful, spoilers ahead***It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.


A comedy gem. Lots of laugh out loud moments, the shop and pub scenes had me belly- laughing uncontrollably. The characters are recognisable and the dialogue well-observed - I know people like this! The humour is surprisingly gentle and the film (this may sound strange) puts me in mind of an Ealing Comedy. It's a quirky little film with lots of detail. It certainly takes a number of viewings. I've watched it a few times (I've been showing all my friends!) and notice something new each time - a bit of dialogue,something visual that I hadn't picked up on before. I could get really picky and find a couple of shortcomings in the film but I'm not going to because overall this is a great fun, feel-good film which is really worth a watch and which anyone with a sense of humour must enjoy. It is a film which will find it's friends and I hope there are a lot of them out there. Oh.... and It has a great soundtrack.


gone in 60 sec. where do i began, it keeps you in the movie with some good action and some cool cars. people say its not a good movie i disagree sure it has some cheesy parts but what action movie doesn't. i gave it an 8 out of 10 cause of the action and the comic relief if you like the Rock or Face Off than this movie is right up your alley cage dose a good job along with one of the most under rated actors in my mind Del-Roy Lindo. i think sometimes people look to far into movies some times you need to sit back enjoy the movie and after words ask yourself did they achieve what they where showing. meaning if they where going for action was it action pact. if they where trying to make a movie to change how movies are made and trying to win every award out their well did they? i think they made the action movie they set out to make, give it a chance and you wont be sorry.


Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video!


Small SPOILERS alert !!!Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the "based on a true story" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10


This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash.


I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.


I saw this in theaters and absolutely adored it. Geoffery Rush gave the best performance as a super villain that I have ever seen since Gene Hackman as Lex Luther. Kel Mitchel and Paul Rubens were a match maid in heaven. This film also introduced me to William H. Macy, who is now one of my favorite actors. Hank was great as the Blue Raja, and I especially loved that the character wasn't really British. The scene with him and telling his mom that he was a superhero almost brought tears to my eyes. I loved the fact that The Bowler talked to the ball. Some of the funniest stuff involved Stiller and his character Mr. Furious's false rage, and the fact that his threats and one-liners were all gibberish, and that they never made any sense. I could barely stop myself from applauding when he said "fraculater, Freinken-puss," was said. But one of the things I most enjoyed was that Captain Amazing actually dies in the movie. I HIGHLY recommend this film for any occasion, and I give it my own personal two-thumbs-up.


In the previews, "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" boasts the image of another immature sex romp about a 40-ish Lonely Guy who suddenly feels the urge to do the deed simply because he hasn't. Too many past bad experiences have dampened his enthusiasm to the point that he avoids women completely. And then the unexpected happens: he falls in love. What's more, there's a movie out about it, and it's called "The 40 Year-old Virgin."The virgin of the title is Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell), who is indeed 40, works as an employee at an electronics store and collects vintage action figures, which are displayed all throughout his nice bachelor pad for all to see. He has a lovely home theater system and watches "Survivor" with his two kind elderly neighbors. He's a pretty picturesque definition of the Lonely Guy who needs to go out more and talk to more women.Now here's the real novelty with this picture: it does the impossible task of actually dealing with its subject matter in a cute, mature fashion. This is a movie that could very easily have turned out a lot differently in the hands of a more transparent team of filmmakers. It could have descended into endless sex gags and jokes but thankfully this picture never stoops that low. Sure there are sex jokes here and there and even a few prods are aimed at the gay community (which are, in no way, meant to be taken as gay-bashing), as two of the characters exchange insults towards each other while playing a video game ("Mortal Kombat: Deception," no less - the ultimate testosterone-driven fightfest for guys).As someone who is rapidly approaching 20, collects McFarlane Toys action figures AND has himself never done the deed, I found this film amusing and touching in a way that a similar-themed movie could never have been. I was able to relate to the character of Andy Stitzer more than anyone in the theater because I was the only teenager present at this showing; everyone else looked like they were all past 40. A bit arrogant, I know, but would you ("you" is italicized) still be able to relate if you were the only teen present at an afternoon screening of "The 40 Year-Old Virgin"?Of course Andy has never had sex and wakes up everyday with "morning rise" (don't ask), and he's pressured by his buddies to try outlandish methods of gaining the attention of the opposite sex. When it's first discovered Andy is a virgin, at 40, his three buddies and fellow electronics store coworkers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco) and Cal (Seth Rogen) all at first assume he's gay because he's never been with a woman, which couldn't be any further from the truth. The truth is, Andy loves women, but past traumatic experiences (revealed hilariously one after the other in a flashback sequence) have put him on the sidelines for good.David, Jay, and Cal each embark on a mission to get Andy laid, so help them all. But you know that such escapades will only end in disaster, as proved by one date with Nicky (Leslie Mann), who puts Andy through the worst drunk-driving experience I think anyone would not want to go through and he has a rather creepy encounter with Beth (Elizabeth Banks), the pretty girl who works in the bookstore and is eventually revealed to be a total sex fiend.Things brighten up for Andy when he meets Trish (Catherine Keener), the friendly woman who works at a store across the street that sells stuff on eBay for people. Hmmm. And with that nice-looking collection of action figures, you can go figure that in the end a large financial payoff awaits him, that is if he can ever "do the deed."At last, this is the sex romp we've been waiting for. It deals with a very real issue a lot of Lonely Guys probably go through, not that anything is wrong with being a virgin but let's look at the big picture: How many of us "Lonely Guys" want to be a lonely guy forever? The important thing we're taught in this picture is that Lonely Guy must be himself. I don't think he needs to go through body waxing like Andy does (which is side-splitting to be honest, and according to this website and various other news articles, was in fact real, and so was the blood on Carell's shirt afterward)."The 40 Year-Old Virgin" was directed by Judd Apatow and co-written by himself and Carell, which originated as a skit that starred Carell. Carell is sweet and human, as his character is not some layabout who approaches this thing with his eyes shut. This is probably one of the most intelligent romps I've ever seen and is not offensive (a whole lot) because its characters are treated with dignity and respect. Even Carell's buddies, who pass off bad advice to cover up their own relationship insecurities, can be related to on a fundamental level.The way "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" plays out is indeed funny in the end, but I'll leave that up to you, the viewer, to observe. Surely, if anyone can go through the things Andy does and still have the strength to attract a woman as sexy as Catherine Keener, then it's true: It is never too late!10/10


I am a great fan of the Batman comics and I became disappointed when I could no longer find Batman: The Animated Series on TV anymore. I was excited to learn that there was going to be a new Batman cartoon on TV. I watched the first episode the day it premiered and I was very disappointed.First of all, the animation is very poor. It looks like a cheap, crappy Japanese anime. Then again, just about every modern-day cartoon is like that.The character designs are even worse. Batman looks more like Birdman, Catwoman looks more like Chihuahuawoman, Bane looks more like a red version of the Hulk, the Penguin is a Kung-Fu master, Mr. Freeze is some undead thing with an iceberg on his head, and the Riddler is a Gothic Marilyn Manson look-alike (which is funny because I don't expect people who are obsessed with riddles and puzzles to be Gothic).The worst character design is that of the Joker. They turned him into a monkey/demented Bob Marley/Kung-Fu fighter! The Joker is supposed to be Batman's deadliest enemy, but in this show he hardly poses a threat because his crimes are so stupid and pointless. In one episode his plan was to put his Joker venom in dog food! Oh, how evil! Batman is a fascinating and complex character because he is haunted by the deaths of his parents, which is why he fights crime. This version of Batman doesn't seem haunted by his parents' deaths and is not interesting at all. He's also not a detective, just a fighter. If there's an enemy he can't defeat, he won't study the enemy to find out their weak points like a detective would, he'll just build a giant fighting robot to defeat them. A lot of times this show doesn't even feel like a Batman show, just another brainless anime that's nothing but pointless fighting.What I hate the most about this show is what they did to the villains. They've taken away everything that makes them likable and relatable and turned them into stereotypical evil bad guys. Man-Bat is the biggest example. In the comics, he's a tragic scientist who studies bats to find a cure for his deafness. When experimenting on himself, he accidentally transforms himself into a giant bat creature. In this show, he's a mad scientist who wants to purposely transform himself into a giant bat creature for no apparent reason. Just about all the villains are like that; none of them, with the exception of about one or two, have an actual motive for their crimes.The worst characterization is that of Mr. Freeze. In the comics, Freeze was a just a mad scientist until the genius writer Paul Dini wrote the BTAS episode "Heart of Ice", which gave Freeze a new origin that made him a more tragic, three-dimensional, and likable villain. The episode was so popular that fans accepted it as his actual origin and it was even used in the comics as his origin. Even that crappy movie Batman & Robin used it as his origin. In this show, he's a petty jewel thief before becoming Mr. Freeze. After becoming Mr. Freeze, guess what? He's STILL a petty jewel thief! Great origin. No wonder they used it over the one Dini created.As a Batman fan, I don't dislike this show just because it isn't like the comics because I also liked BTAS, the Batman cartoons that came after it, Tim Burton's Batman films, and obviously, the superb Christopher Nolan Batman films. None of them were 100% loyal to the comics, but they were still very good. The problem with this show is not that it's not exactly like the comics or BTAS, it's that it lacks any sort of depth that makes other Batman media so popular.I've given this show so many chances, but the more I watch, the more I find that disappoints me. I miss the good old days back when Batman cartoons were something everyone could enjoy.


With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.


...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.


This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So). Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special. Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.


This is one of the best Jodie Foster movies out there and largely ignored due to the general public's misconception of it as a teen flick. It has wonderful performances, particularly a fight scene between Jodie and her mother, played by a convincing Sally Kellerman. The three girls that play Jodie's friends are somewhat amateurish but I do think it is worth seeing.


I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt...


Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.4/10


It does seem like this film is polarizing us. You either love it or hate it. I loved it.I agree with the comment(s) that said, you just gotta "feel" this one.Also, early in the film, Tom Cruise shows his girlfriend a painting done by Monet--an impressionist painter. Monet's style is to paint in little dabs so up close the painting looks like a mess, but from a distance, you can tell what the subject is. Cruise mentions that the painting has a "vanilla sky". I believe this is a hint to the moviegoer. This movie is like that impressionist painting. It's impressionist filmmaking! And it's no coincidence that the title of the movie refers to that painting.This is not your typical linear plot. It requires more thought. There is symbolism and there are scenes that jump around and no, you're not always going to be sure what's going on. But at the end, all is explained.You will need to concentrate on this movie but I think people are making the mistake of concentrating way too hard on it. After it ends is when you should think about it. If you try to figure it out as it's unfolding, you will overwhelm yourself. Just let it happen..."go" with it...keep an open mind. Remember what you see and save the analysis for later.I found all the performances top notch and thought it to be tremendously unique, wildly creative, and spellbinding.But I will not critize the intelligence of those of you who didn't enjoy it. It appeals to a certain taste. If you like existential, psychedelic, philosophical, thought-provoking, challenging, spiritual movies, then see it. If you prefer something a little lighter, then skip it.But if you DO like what I described, then you will surely enjoy it.


This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas.


I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. - A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. - A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. - I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. - The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. - Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. - How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.


A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.


Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling". During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.


Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely.


I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.


...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to "small", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10


Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.My Grade: D+ Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller


I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.


I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual! By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences!


This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.


Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.


This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.


Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies.


I don't think this movie is for everyone. But I saw it this weekend in Seattle and I thought it was so funny. I haven't laughed that hard during a movie in long time. I thought the entire cast did a great job. You will find yourself laughing from the first moment through the very last scene. I suspect some moviegoers (especially the ones who take themselves WAY too seriously) will be turned off by this brand of humor. Not me. The movie was a real surprise. And the entire theater was rolling with laughter throughout the showing I went to which makes me think that a lot of people enjoyed themselves and were happy to have a good time at the movies for a change. I cannot wait to see it again! If you're in the mood to LOL then this is for you. Funny funny funny funny!


Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide. I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking. For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'.


A very refreshing story, the life of a parrot with an intellect higher than an average human's. Shows humans from a bird's point of view. Especially liked the portrayal of different types of characters that the bird spends time with. Not all birds are bird-brained...


"Let's Bowl" started out on local television in the Twin Cities. It came on late at night, something you'd stumble across while channel surfing after your 7th bottle of Hamm's.Even the ads were locally produced, featuring Wally outside Grumpy's Bar, holding a microphone and stammering nervously -- "Ahh...over to you, Steve Sedahl." Not sure why, but that one always made me laugh.There was a bowling contest featured under the guise of settling a dispute between two bowlers, but the game was secondary to the commentary and clips. Sedahl played it straight, counter-balanced by Rich Kronfeld's bizarre and hilarious "Wally Hotvedt." Highlights included segments like "How to Properly Dispose of an Old Bowling Ball" (chuck them into a lake) and "Tips on Dating," where the duo "date" a couple of hookers and Wally ends with the bitter complaint, "I could have done that myself!" Another segment -- what the duo did on their days off -- featured Steve in beer can strewn hovel, pigging out from the fridge while Wally struggled to climb the cliffs at Taylor's Falls, dressed in his tight pale blue blazer and over-sized headphones. Hilarious! Wally's awestruck comments about "league bowlers," and his struggle to apply the correct euphemism to various splits were also highlights."Let's Bowl" was picked up by Comedy Central and had some good moments, but the network never really knew what to do with it, running it during prime time and emphasizing the bowling "competition," which was never the point of the show. The constant commercials interrupted the flow and the side characters (Ernie, the Pig, Butch, etc.) were more distractions than anything else. The whole thing seemed rushed and kind of forced. Even Jon Stewart dissed Let's Bowl on the Daily Show -- (not enough lame, snide jokes?) -- an ignominious treatment for a show that deserved far better.How often does a "Let's Bowl" come along in the world of modern television, a locally flavored mix of comedic genius and total crap? The networks have the "total crap" part down cold, but it's a sad thing to watch them kill such a dark, strange, funny little gem like "Let's Bowl." Here's hoping they'll put it out on DVD.


No doubt intended as a totally campy joke, "Full Moon High" portrays 1950s teenager Tony Walker (Adam Arkin) accompanying his father (Ed McMahon) on a trip to Romania. Sure enough, Tony gets bitten, and grows fur and fangs whenever there's a full moon. A particularly interesting aspect in this movie is that he can't age as long as he has the werewolf curse, and that he has to fulfill a destiny - even if it takes twenty years.But otherwise, the movie's just plain funny once it gets going. Ed McMahon's character is an over-patriotic right-wing yahoo (he thinks that everyone should have listened to Joe McCarthy), Kenneth Mars's coach/principal is a tense dweeb, and then there's more. One of the most eye-opening cast members is Demond Wilson - best remembered as Lamont on "Sanford and Son" - as a bus driver who gets a big surprise. But probably the funniest scene is the changing of the presidents; then gag with Gerald Ford really summed him up! Anyway, it's a real treat. Considering that Alan Arkin - who plays a zany psychiatrist - just won an Oscar on Sunday night and thanked his sons, I wonder whether or not he remembers co-starring with two of them in this movie (aside from Adam, his son Anthony also has a small role). Quite funny. Also starring Elizabeth Hartman.PS: director Larry Cohen is probably best known for the killer baby flick "It's Alive".


...but this has to be the worst A Christmas Carol adaptation of all time. And that takes some doing, what with the likes of various Lifetime efforts. Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against Cicely Tyson. I've enjoyed her tremendously in other roles (look at Sipsey in Fried Green Tomatoes, for example). But the script gives her no option but to chew the scenery. And chew it she does, with all the enthusiasm of Tiny Tim tying into a Christmas goose.Give me the classics anytime: Alastair Sim, 1951. With the exception maybe of Scrooged, all the others are just over-the-top efforts to grasp the past, present, or future Spirit of Christmas.


Take one look at the cover of this movie, and you know right away that you are not about to watch a landmark film. This is cheese filmmaking in every respect, but it does have its moments. Despite the look of utter trash that the movie gives, the story is actually interesting at some points, although it is undeniably pulled along mainly by the cheerleading squads' shower scenes and sex scenes with numerous personality-free boyfriends. The acting is awful and the director did little more than point and shoot, which is why the extensive amount of nudity was needed to keep the audience's attention.In The Nutty Professor, a hopelessly geeky professor discovers a potion that can turn him into a cool and stylish womanizer, whereas in The Invisible Maniac, a mentally damaged professor discovers a potion that can make him invisible, allowing him to spy on (and kill, for some reason) his students. Boring fodder. Don't expect any kind of mental stimulation from this, and prepare yourself for shrill and enormously overdone maniacal laughter which gets real annoying real quick...


I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the "Nothing to Do With Reality" department.


Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.


"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10


The film really challenges your notions of identity and the society we live in. It is well made and very powerful. The persons in the film are honest and revealing about the world that exists outside of the normative ideological perspective. I believe it give great insight into a sub-culture who shakes the very ideas that the viewer has of society. It is shocking at times and more powerful because of it. Some parts were difficult to watch, as most reality is, but it is not over done. Its good the first time you watch it, but it becomes even better the second or third time around; because you have had the chance to wrap your mind around the very topics they discuss and challenge.


Oh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type ("The tough ninja-buster", the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. "Move without thinking"??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.


Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, "What are ya? Some kind of nut?"). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from ****


This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!