**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.


I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(


I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little "too" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)


I attempted watching this movie twice and even then fast forwarding the irritating parts but still could not make it to the end.I don't understand how this movie *genuinely* got any good reviews. I think these people giving such good reviews are just trying to hype the movie for marketing purposes. Their reviews seem very unrealistic and it looks like an inside job, which makes things more pitiful. Movies should get true positive comments on their own steam and not contrived ones!! The acting was reminiscent of a cheesy porno movie, and not in a funny way. I don't mind low budget movies with bad acting if they know how to work with it. I found the lead character to be irritating. His facial expressions and humor was unbearably childish. I thought this was intentional to make the womens conspiracy seem more enjoyable and founded, but they were even worse. The script was also very awkward (his bosses overdone business speech) and the unfunny sarcastic remarks. I did not find anything redeeming about this movie other than some of the attractive women.Never have I felt that a rating was this misleading. I was interested by its premise but scared off by everything else. Of course see it if you want, but I just didn't want anyone else to get their hopes up/waste their time. Maybe it is just me... Probably not.


Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.


I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.


So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the "southern" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word "ya'll." This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that.


Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with
 Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.


As with many other pop-culture franchise series, this line just didn't know when to quit. Instead of leaving things as they were perfectly ended, they went on to generate this; the first installment of this franchise to fall sorely short of the mark.This movie should never have happened. It was not intended for there to have been a fourth movie in this line, and it sure shows. The premise is idiotic and the portrayals were the same.After the wonderful experience which was The Omen, this was a major disappointment which stank of 70's cheese and horrible acting. It was reminiscent of the Amityville Horror in those aspects, and left a terrible, lingering stench long after it was over. It rates a 1.4/10 from...the Fiend :.


Like many people here, I started out finding my patience being tried by this film. By the end, I actually shed a few tears.It seems to be in the nature of most old films to drag for 7/8th length and then catch fire right at the end. Older film-goers learned to bide their time patiently through the slow parts, calm in the knowledge that the big payoff is on the way. But that isn't quite accurate. You see, to earlier audiences, what are to us the "slow parts" were the main body of the story. They watched and found anecdotal and thematic interest there. Modern audiences, post-Spielberg, are in a constant state of waiting to be hit with a small climax every two minutes when they see older films. It's the inflation problem of modern movies. Well, that isn't going to happen. It is not necessary to apologize for these films; it is simply that you have to adjust your expectations and personal rhythm when you watch them. At this point, the difference between Avatar and The Informer is like the difference between Euripides and a traveling production of Rent. Think about it for a minute or two. Not to strain at the obvious, but Euripides still deserves a hearing.The "exciting part", for most modern viewers, begins with the IRA tribunal scene and escalates to the final couple of minutes, which, if you are at all on board or even paying attention by that time, will tear your heart out. It's not some high-tone universal abstract plea for forgiveness; it's a plea from one dimwit, and those who feel sorry for the big lummox, for a little mercy. It's that personal, and that embarrassingly naked an appeal. For after being mad at Gypo, irritated at him, thinking this is the dumbest character of all time, you finally find yourself won over by the scene of Gypo's erstwhile girlfriend pleading to another woman to talk her man into going easy him. The film may be sentimental, but the sentimentality is not cheap as some here have charged. There's a matter of life and death that plays out here, and as long as you take the proposition of one life to a customer seriously, it's sentimentality wrung out of the most serious stuff.8 of 10. And the fault for it not being 10 of 10 is my own and in some measure yours, if you are reading this. We have all asked for more, ever more, faster, ever faster until we cannot put ourselves in 1935 -- just yesterday, really -- as easily as we should be able.


I don't watch much porn, but I love porn stars. And I love gory movies. So when I heard about a porn-star gore movie, I was really excited. Of course, that was years ago and when I heard about all the trouble with making and finishing the movie, I never thought I'd actually get to see it. But I did and I'm not ashamed to admit I loved it, even with all its flaws.First, the flaws. The story is set in Ireland and is called Samhain, but the story it seemed to want to tell is about the Sawney Beane clan from Scotland. So why not just set it there and skip the third-grade report about Samhain/Irish immigrants/Halloween? Also, it breaks its own rules by stating that you're safe on the trails, but then the cannibal mutants just start running amok everywhere. It's never clear how many cannibals we're dealing with. There's a big stone castle that's obviously ancient, yet no one's noticed it before. The self-conscious horror film references are annoying and so are the characters. The heroine has a flashback montage of all her dead friends that include a character she NEVER MET. The ending makes no sense.So what works? The gore! Sure I would have liked more, but it was refreshing to see such a nasty movie that wasn't afraid to be nothing more than a gore movie. Two murders are waay over the top and Taylor Hayes has a nice disgusting scene. The two wild murders are even given extended shots on the DVD. I've always been of the mind that gore can overcome a stupid story and Evil Breed reinforced that.


I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!


I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking "the German dream" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it.


I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.


Olivier, Kosentsev, Richardson, Coranado, Zefferelli, and Almerayeda have all directed Hamlet but Branagh's the only one who got it right.This is the only film of "Hamlet" that contains the full four hours of William Shakespeare's masterpiece and gives a unique feel to the whole story.Not many directors could pull this off without boring their audience but Branagh's skillful use of bravora film style and stunt casting allows people to see the importance of the scenes that are usually cut out.Examples of this include Gerarde Depardue as Ranyaldo whos entire purpose in the film was to simply say "yes my lord" as Polonius asks him to spy on Leartes. This also included Billy Crystal as the grave digger, Robin Williams as Osric, Jack Lemmon as Marcellous, and Charlton Heston as the actor.Branagh's performance of the Act 4 scene 4 soliloquy (Which again is usually cut out) is nothing short of c cinematic marvel as the camera slowly pulls back as the intensity grows. It is a scene that literally made me want to jump out of my chair and start applauding.Branagh is the only film maker that understood the importance of every scene in this film and knew how to convey that importance to the general audience.This is a must see for everyone who enjoy's good story telling, brilliant acting,and incredible direction. All of these part of William Shakespeares greatest triumph.


This movie was a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan.


This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!8/10


I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.


The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion.


When this movie first came out back in 1984, Prince was one of the hottest acts around. Everyone wanted to see this movie, which was not much more than a extended music video. The acting was pretty bad, but what can you expect from musicians acting on the big screen for the first time? Despite that, it was still a very entertaining film! Morris Day and Jerome Benton provide some all time classic comedy, especially their rendition of "The Password", which will make you think of Abbott & Costello doing their "who's on first" baseball routine.Appolina (who went by a single name then) provided some beautiful breasts, so you had the brief nudity covered. Plus, she is very attractive. And of course, the soundtrack of the album is one of the best Prince ever recorded. Prince later on had a fallout with Warner Bros. and changed his name, but at this particular time in his career, he was at the top of his game.This movie doesn't rank in the all time great category, but it is pretty entertaining.


What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing.


TACHIGUI: THE AMAZING LIVES OF THE FAST-FOOD GRIFTERS Japanese title: Tachiguishi RetsudenDirector: Mamoru Oshii Featuring: Toshio Suzuki, Mako Hyodo, Kenji Kawai, Shinji Higuchi, Katsuya Terada Narrated by Koichi Yamadera ----------------------------------------Way back in 1995, Mamoru Oshii unleashed his dazzling animation feature Ghost In The Shell, which helped consolidate anime's international acceptance - and also burrowed itself into Andy and Larry Wachowski's overall concept for The Matrix.The movie's sequel, Innocence (2004), was the inaugural Japanese animated film to compete for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and it left heads spinning as much for its style and innovative effects as for its oft unfathomable plot.Always the trendsetter, Oshii has now presented us with Tachigui: The Amazing Lives Of The Fast-Food Grifters  which has absolutely nothing to do with Ghost In The Shell, nor Japanese anime for that matter.Say hello to Oshii's creation "superlivemation": not quite animation, nor exactly live-action. Instead the cast endured somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 snapshots, which were digitally processed and reconstituted in a deceptively simple paper cut-out fashion reminiscent of Balinese puppetry. The movement itself is a stilted, stop-motion style that echoes sequences from Shinya Tsukamoto's experimental Tetsuo: Iron Man (1988)."I couldn't think of any method but this one," said Oshii in a recent interview with The Daily Yomiuri. "I realized that this project was not suitable for traditional animation."The cast choice is equally enigmatic. Kenji Kawai - who also composed the superlative soundtrack - appears as a ravenous burger fanatic, while renowned Studio Ghibli producer Toshio Suzuki spends his screen time being murdered in bizarre fashion. Others include Katsuya Terada, who dabbled with Oshii on Blood: The Last Vampire, and Shinji Higuchi - a special effects whiz who's worked on Godzilla movies.Koichi Yamadera's narration sounds like the stuff of a dry NHK documentary  which belies the comic undertone here as well as Yamadera's extensive career voicing stoic anime characters like Spike Siegel in Cowboy Bebop.And the plot itself is a bizarre re-imagining of post-WWII Japan in the context of various fast-food off-shoots - from soba ramen shops to gyudon stand-up bars; American dogs in the heat-up trays of convenience stores to McDonalds- inspired burger-chain restaurants. "Food is a primal root of desire," asserted Oshii, by way of explanation. Thrown into the mix is a new breed of consumer: the fast-food grifters of the title, people who don't like to pay for their tucker and are constantly fine-tuning their elaborate scams to score free munchies. Oshii said his ulterior motive was homage to the "art" of eating food on the streets  something still considered a bit of a taboo in this country, and which goes some way toward explaining the use of "tachigui" in the title.The director of live-action movies (Avalon, Stray Dog) as well as animation, Oshii has often blurred the definition between the two mediums. The celluloid result here is deposited somewhere in the grey area between both formats.At times the visual experiment here is as exhilarating as it can be irritating. Just don't ask what it's all really supposed to mean; Oshii's films, which are equal parts cerebral and innovative, are often not particularly clear story-wise. Where Oshii succeeds is via a liberal dose of black humor  here you'll find Kentucky Fried Rat, death by hula-hoop, the world's fastest samurai burger chef  and in the movie's very nature of surrealism.This is a man who defers to the influence of filmmakers like Godard and Truffaut, and perhaps owes as much to Andrei Tarkovsky as he does David Lynch. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that at one stage a B-52 bomber does a fly- through in a Yoshinoya look-alike franchise. The 54-year-old writer-director seemed to think this natural. "The Japan I depicted in the movie may not necessarily be faithful to reality," he suggested.Of course. --------------By Andrez Bergen


A fine story about following your dreams and actually taking a stab at Doing something about them when the chance strikes. Nothing was easy for Morris either-he had a family, job, job opps elsewheres, a mortgage, etc-it wasn't like he could just drop what he was doing and blithely hop on the greyhound to play AAA ball for 4 months. It took guts. I am glad that they showed his indecision, almost up 'til he got the callup to the majors.I can remember seeing him pitch against the Red Sox(I think...), it was a great story. Though Morris actually looks more like John Kruk or a Mills Watson than Quaid-that's okay. Quaid does a very good job playing the man, the teacher, coach and 'oldest rookie'.... As someone who is in the the same age group, I certainly can ID with his plight. You're not Quite too old to do what you had dreamed of as a kid, but it's getting there. You have to do it sooner than lator.Believably told, nicely edited, paced, acted, good to see the familiar faces of the late Royce Applegate, Brian Cox and Rachel Griffiths here.Good job all around, glad to see it hit.*** outta ****...who woulda thought that the Tampa Devil Rays woulda been the subject of such a good movie early on?


This film, along with WESTFRONT 1918, are my favorite Pabst-directed films and I enjoyed them more than his much more famous films which starred Louise Brooks (such as PANDORA'S BOX). It's probably because both are very similar to the Neo-Realist films that the Italians perfected in the 1940s and 50s. This style film called for using non-actors (just typical folks) in everyday settings in order to create intensely involving and realistic films.In this case, the film is about French and German coal miners, so appropriately, the people in the roles seem like miners--not actors. The central conflict as the film begins is that there is a huge mine located on the Franco-German border. Instead of one big mine, it is divided at the border and German workers are not welcome in the French mine, despite there being greater unemployment in Germany. This, language differences (illustrated wonderfully in a dance hall scene) and WWI conspire to create a huge rift between the factions--resulting in a WE vs. THEY mentality. Later, an explosion causes a huge collapse in the French and the Germans refuse to sit back and do nothing. Risking their own lives, they prove that there is true comradeship between miners and men in general.The film is a strong criticism of xenophobia and tried, in vain, to get the German audiences to see the futility of war and hatred. It was a gorgeously moving film with some of the scariest and claustrophobic images I have ever seen. Considering history, though, the film's impact was minimal at best. It's a real shame, as like this one, WESTFRONT 1918, JÁACCUSE (Gance) and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Milestone) had great messages of peace and harmony but ultimately were failures in positively swaying public opinion. So, from a historical point of view, it's an amazing and sad relic that is well worth seeing.


Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.


OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!


This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's "ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain". Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. "Burning Paradise" put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from "Paradise Lost": "Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!" And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all.


this film is terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).


Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10


Seven Pounds, this was the movie where I was just convinced Will Smith is really going for the "I'm going to make you cry" films. One thing I can give him a ton of credit for, the man can cry. My only thing is, as moving as the story is, Will Smith has proved time and time again that he can act, so why is he taking this extremely depressing story? But nevertheless it's still a good movie. I do have to admit it made me cry, but I felt that the stand out performance was Rosario Dawson, I absolutely love this girl, ever since I saw her in 25th Hour with Ed Norton, I knew this girl was going to go far. She's beautiful, charming, funny and talented, can't wait to see how much further her career is going to go. But her and Will Smith, not so sure if they had the great chemistry that the film needed that would've made this into a great film.Two years ago Tim Thomas was in a car crash, which was caused by him using his mobile phone; seven people died: six strangers and his fiancée. A year after the crash, and having quit his job as an aeronautical engineer, Tim donates a lung lobe to his brother, Ben, an IRS employee. Six months later he donates part of his liver to a child services worker named Holly. After that he begins searching for more candidates to receive donations. He finds George, a junior hockey coach, and donates a kidney to him, and then donates bone marrow to a young boy named Nicholas. Two weeks before he dies he contacts Holly and asks if she knows anyone who deserves help. She suggests Connie Tepos, who lives with an abusive boyfriend. Tim moves out of his house and into a local motel taking with him his pet box jellyfish. One night, after being beaten, Connie contacts Tim and he gives her the keys and deed to his beach house. She takes her two children and moves in to their new home. Having stolen his brother's credentials, and making himself known by his brother's name Ben, he checks out candidates for his two final donations. The first is Ezra Turner, a blind vegetarian meat salesman who plays the piano. Tim calls Ezra Turner and harasses him at work to check if he is quick to anger. Ezra remains calm and Tim decides he is worthy. He then contacts Emily Posa, a self-employed greeting card printer who has a heart condition and a rare blood type. He spends time with her, weeding her garden and fixing her rare Heidelberg printer. He begins to fall in love with her and decides that as her condition has worsened he needs to make his donation.Seven Pounds is a good film and no doubt worth a look, I would just recommend going for the rental vs. the theater. Will Smith pulls in a good performance, but not his best, just most of the film required him crying in every scene, but the last one with him is a doozy. But I loved the ending, it was beautiful and really made you appreciate life and to not take it for granted. There is still good people in this world and Ben's character reminds you to value life and to give to those who are in desperate need. Although he went a little far, but it was still a beautiful story.7/10


I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!


OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10.


'Shock Corridor (1963)' was my first film from Samuel Fuller, and there I was impressed with the director's astute blending of B-movie and big-budget aesthetics, even if the story itself was pure schlock. 'Pickup on South Street (1953)' was released a decade earlier in Fuller's career, obviously produced on a larger budget from a big-name studio, Twentieth Century-Fox. Nevertheless, the visuals are still notable in that there's a somewhat raw, naturalistic element to the photography, not unlike Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)' and Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' {the latter was also shot by cinematographer Joe McDonald}. In some scenes, Fuller shoves the camera so close to his actors' faces that they're out of focus, bluntly registering the intimate thoughts, emotions and brief inflections that are communicated through that most revealing of facial features, the eye. Though (unexpectedly) prone to melodrama, and with just a hint of anti-Communist propaganda, 'Pickup on South Street' is a strong film noir that succeeds most outstandingly in its evocation of setting  the underground of New York City.When just-out-of-prison pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) snags the purse of a woman on the subway (Jean Peters), he pockets more than he'd originally bargained for. The woman, Candy, and her cowardly ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) had been smuggling top-secret information to the Communists, and McKoy has unexpectedly retrieved an important roll of micro-film. Will he turn in the MacGuffin to the proper authorities, or sell it to the highest bidder? If 'Pickup on South Street' has a flaw, it's that the story seems designed solely to bolster an anti-Communist agenda, reeking of propaganda like nothing since WWII {Dwight Taylor, who supplied the story, also notably wrote 'The Thin Man Goes Home (1944),' the only propagandistic movie of the series}. For no apparent reason, every identifiable character  even the smugly self-serving Skip McCoy  eventually becomes a self-sacrificing patriot, the transformation predictable from the outset. In traditional film noir, the unapologetic criminal always gets his comeuppance, the rational punishment for his sins, but apparently not when they've served their country; patriotism wipes the slate clean.Richard Widmark, an actor who I'm really beginning to like, plays the haughty pickpocket with composure, though always with that hint of ill-ease that suggests he's biting off more than he can chew. The opening scene on the train is the film's finest, as McCoy breathlessly and silently fishes around in his victim's hand bag, recalling Bresson's 'Pickpocket (1959).' Thelma Ritter is terrific as a tired street-woman who'll peddle information to anybody willing to pay for it (though, of course, she draws the line at Commies). Jean Peters is well-cast as the trashy dame passing information to the other side, playing the role almost completely devoid of glamour; Fuller reportedly cast the actress on the observation that she had the slightly bow-legged strut of a prostitute. Nevertheless, Peters must suffer a contrived love affair with Widmark that really brings down the film's attempts at realism. Fascinatingly, upon its release, 'Pickup on South Street' was promptly condemned as Communist propaganda by the FBI, and the Communist Party condemned it for being the exact opposite. Go figure.


As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)


I first read Pearl S Buck's splendid novel in my ninth grade history class, and I enjoyed every thrilling page of it. It was almost inevitable that Hollywood would get hold of it, and considering that it was made in 1937, the results are excellent.Certain things have to be accepted: in 1937 there was no question of casting Asian actors in a major Hollywood film. In a way this renders the end product rather more interesting than if they had been able to use a more authentic-looking cast.With that obstacle to overcome, executive producer Irving Thalberg and director Sidney Franklin (among others) took the trouble to hand-pick a splendid and stellar cast. Paul Muni plays Wang Lung. Muni was at the peak of his powers as an actor during this period, and could very nearly play anything he put his mind to. Once you get past the makeup (it's good, but no one is going to really mistake him for a Chinese man), his performance has all the verisimilitude of his best work.Then there is Luise Rainer. Coming off an Oscar win the previous year for her performance in THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, the Viennese actress's star was on the rise and she was given the plum role of O-lan despite her lack of experience in Hollywood. Her performance won her a second consecutive Oscar, the first time in history that happened.Much criticism has been leveled at Rainer's performance, and her Oscar win here. She has been called wooden and one-note. There is a small grain of truth in that. HOWEVER, that being said, all you need to do is go back to the book. For Rainer, though not Chinese, played O-lan pretty much as Buck wrote her; it is in fact a splendid performance, and one of the best transfers from book to screen I have ever witnessed.As for the rest of the cast, well this was MGM. They had the biggest roster of stars and character actors in Hollywood at the time, and a big budget to pay for the best, and in the end they got the best.The film softens Wang Lung's marriage to O-lan somewhat. In the novel, with wealth come the lusts of the flesh and he takes on a concubine, a move which devastates his wife but her feelings as a mere woman do not concern him. In the film, a contrite Wang Lung returns to his wife on her deathbed the two pearls he had taken from her years before, realizing too late that she was his true love.Corny, yes. But that's Hollywood. Considering the obstacles they were up against, the film might well have opened to screams of laughter. But despite the noticeable dearth of real Asians in the cast, this film has worn surprisingly well with the passage of seventy-three years. In fact the most amazing thing about this film is how good it is, when it might so easily have been a disaster.


I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs.


Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a "memoir" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry. SPOILER COMING UP:THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer. Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that "Fighting Mac", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have.


This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me. Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.


I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version. My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it. I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it. The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.Hope this helps.


What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.


I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least "You Got Served" was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me.


Women have never looked so attractive and pathetic as in Salazar's film Piedras. Although editor's cut here and there might help the film, it is exciting and enjoyable with an intense mark from Pedro Almodovar's latest films. 5 different women are coping with their male partners and families. Beginning with several different stories bound to meet as the plot goes on, Salazar portraits his women characters in the same neurotic and border-line behaviour familiar to Almodovar. A kleptomaniac high society lady with a fattish to smaller shoes, a burlesque house madam taking care of her disabled daughter, a drug addict dancer obsessed with her former boyfriend and a taxi-driver taking care of her late husband's disturbed kids, all roaming the streets of Madrid in well designed scenes. Using some of Almodovar's familiar actresses, the director succeeds in it's first film to give depth to all the characters sharing the film, and to create genuine sympathy with each of them. The women controls the plot line, and the men are bound to be left with each other, eventually... Surprisingly good for a first film, and worth the time in any standard. It is noticeable that Salazar hesitated in some needed guidelines to the actresses, but an impressible act is shown anyway on the screen, especially by Monica Cervera, which played in his former short film.A must to all Almodovar's fans, and enjoyable to all.


I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")


THE YOUNG VICTORIA is a elegantly costumed and reproduced bit of history that benefits from some fine settings, solid direction by Jean-Marc Vallée of stalwart Julian Fellowes' version of the youthful lass who was to become England's longest reigning monarch - Victoria. Much of the early portion of the film, that part when Victoria is a child whose ascent to the throne is contested by her mother (Miranda Richardson) and Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) seems to drag and get lost in the multiple costumes and scenery variations. But once Victoria (Emily Blunt) comes of age and is courted by Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) the film blooms. Blunt is a strong actress and finds that delicate line between girlish infatuation and royal dignity that makes her a fine foil for those at court who would seek to control the 'child queen' - including her secretary Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). But as she matures into her role as queen her eye dwells on the dashing German Prince Albert, and a love affair that has lasted in the memories of everyone is matched by the concept of joining Royalty with concern for the care of her subjects - much due to the sensitivity of Albert. The film takes us to the birth of their first of nine children and then ends with some statements about the influence of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's effect on the various Royalties throughout Europe! It makes for an evening of beautiful costume drama and allows us to appreciate the growth of two young stars in Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. A solid if not transporting epic. Grady Harp


I grew up during the time that the music in this movie was popular. What a wonderful time for music and dancing! My only complaint was that I was a little too young to go to the USO and nightclubs. Guess it sounds like I'm living in the past, (I do have wonderful memories)so what's wrong with that?!!? World War 2 was a terrible time, except where music was concerned. Glenn Miller's death was a terrible sadness to us. This movie will be a favorite of mine. Clio Laine was excellent; what a voice! I don't know how I ever missed this movie. My main reason for this commentary is to alert the modern generation to an alternative to Rap and New Age music, which is offensive to me. Please watch this movie and give it a chance!


This movie is my all time favorite!!! You really have to see Michael Jackson in this wonderful film!! I'm always over the moon, watching it!! This is a film, that you really have to see, also if you aren't a MJ Fan, cause this film writes, like Captain EO, E.T. and Ghosts, a bit of Film and music History!! This wonderful film, out of Michael's feather, is a must have!! And: Smooth Criminal, is really the most wonderful, exciting and amazing song I've ever heard in my life!! Thank you Michael for this film and I love you!!! MJ's the best musician to hit this planet, he's a fine man and he always brings sparkles in your eyes, when you listen to his music!! Please, if you don't know this film, watch it and don't miss it, because would be too bad for yourself if you'd miss it!! -Highly Recommanded film, for every movie lover-


By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.No such luck.I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.


Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers! Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem!


This early B entry into the patriotic category slapped a gorgeous young Gene Tierney on the ads and posters, but you have to wait a good time before you glimpse her, riding in a Hollywoodized camel train. Previously, we've set up George Sanders and Bruce Cabot in the desert as guys who barely get along, but must rally in the face of attack. I've seen Sanders as so many enjoyable cads that it was fun to witness a rare good guy turn. However, Bruce Cabot's allure is pretty much a mystery to me - he's base and unsubtle in comparison, but I've always felt he'd just emerged, smiling, from under a car, covered in grease and a sixth grade education. Some people like 'em that way, as did Gene's gypsy queen character. This is an action adventure filler, tho, and just as we've been warned of invading locals with guns, ready to sabotage and attack the Brits in their land, there is a final gun battle in which we must lose a main character for the good of all. This feature requires nothing more than your barest attention on a Saturday afternoon, a programmer that made whatever else it was paired with better. It was almost more interesting identifying the great supporting cast and a surprise appearance by Dorothy Dandridge in one of her first roles. A two or two and a half stars out of five.-MDM


I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking.


This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success.


OVERALL PERFORMANCE :- At last the long waiting AAG hits the screens. Unfortunately, it couldn't set progressive fire in the audience. The first best thing to talk about the movie is The idea of remaking the mighty SHOLAY. And Varma made a nice choice of changing the total backdrop of the movie. If he repeated the same Ramghad backdrop, people will again say there is nothing new in this. Different background is appreciative but the way he presented it is not worthy. Right from the start of his career with SIVA in Telugu, he had been using the same lighting and kind of background. I seriously dunno this guy Varma considers about lighting or not or may be he has no other lighting technique other than like gordon willis GODFATHER. It's all DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH. Why would some body use so many Dutch angles and extreme closeup shots!!!!!!! The shot division is lame. Characters couldn't carry an emotion, performances are not to their mark, Storytelling is worse, Background is really really terrible.Babban:- Amitabhz been over prioritized to his job. VARMA produced great villains like Bikumatre, Bhavtakur Das, Mallik Bhai but this time he failed in carving the all time best characters of Hindi Cinema. There's no comparison of Gabbar with Babban. Babban is a more psycho rather than a villain, still he has a soft corner for his brother ( It's a gift in this movie). Amitabhz performance is not to his mark. His appearance itself is pathetic. The scar on his nose, symbolizes forgotten villains of black and white cinema. What ever they worked on Babban is not successful. Babban is no comparison with Gabbar.Narsimha:- The first best thing about this character is not to put audience in suspense about his hands. If varma did that , it would be like teaching ABCD to a Bachelor degree holder. Itz good he opened the secret early. But the flashback is pathetic. Varma couldn't use a great actor like mohanlal to his mark.Durga:- The only character with betterment. This character has been improved with satisfactory changes and was used according to the story.Heroo, Raj, Ghunguroo:- No body bothers or at least considers these character. The utter failure of movie starts when director could not work on the close friendship between our heroz. These characters carry nothing to this movie.RAMGOPALVARMA:- His quality is degrading, diminishing. AAG totally can be treated as a C grade movie. Sholay is a fire of revenge, problem of a town, meaning for true friendship and highly appreciated nuisance and fun by Dharmendra. AAG never carried an emotion with its characters. Storytelling is too weak that it could not make audience feel sympathy for the characters. Don't compare AAG with sholay, still u will not like it.If you dare watch this movie. You will be burnt alive in RAMGOPAL VARMA KI AAG


This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!


**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet. And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes. In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.


Though it had the misfortune to hit the festival circuit here in Austin (SXSW Film) just as we were getting tired of things like Shakespeare in Love, and Elizabeth, this movie deserves an audience. An inside look at the staging of "The Scottish Play" as actors call "Macbeth" when producing it to avoid the curse, this is a crisp, efficient and stylish treatment of the treachery which befalls the troupe. With a wonderfully evocative score, and looking and sounding far better than its small budget would suggest, this is a quiet gem, not world-class, but totally satisfying.


.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....


It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library!


Another Channel 4 great canned long before it's time. Compelling acting from Phil Davis and the rest of the cast. Sexy, intelligent and funny. I remember watching it at the time and even then, asking around, no-one had really heard of it. But trying to find someone now who can recall it is even harder. Perhaps Channel 4 don't do their job well enough in drumming up the enthusiasm needed. Either that or the general public is too interested in the TV vomit that is Big Brother. I suspect the latter. Downloading of Garth Merengie's Dark Place prompted Channel 4 to release a DVD of that series. Let's hope the same can happen with North Square.


Lost is largely considered one of the most beautiful TV series that have never done ... and so is ... if you lovers of mysteries, intrigue and adventure this is the series for you ...In the first season ... since the first episode starts to go increasingly to move forward until you get to the second season ... in the second you lose a little its cocktail of mystery and expectation and pushes very on and reveal the various mysteries that the island hides ... the third season is perhaps the second most beautiful because resumed suffered since the first episode with the pace and tenacity of the first season ... the fourth also not let pass unnoticed and tends to reveal a little mysteries ... but not as the second season but at a somewhat different ... For the fifth season expects ...


Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.


Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had. The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.4 out of 10. Barely


I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised.


this was the best bonnie and clyde movie i have seen. it has more accurate accounts of what happened and while it doesnt glorify their crimes it casts the pair in a normal light. i give this movie a 10. it has great actors,realistic scenes and excellent writers.


I have been watching this show since I was 14 and I've loved it ever since. I love this show because it's just plain funny! You will enjoy this show a lot because it shows something new and funnier everyday and my favorite part is when Benny always has her last comments on George after every punchline about his fat giant head.*laughs* I would laugh and I'd watch it with my friends at home it'd be like we were watching a funny movie but short. Love George Lopez. Funny, talented,funny,spectacular. This is a cool-funny-family comedy series enjoyable to everyone and you will definitely enjoy it--I did! And if you haven't watched it yet I suggest that you start watching because you wouldn't want to stop watching it. Even though there aren't anymore brand new episodes I still enjoy the re-runs. Still funny. Never wears off. 9/10


Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush. Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what? Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here. Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess. This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed." It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?


Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.


George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments  it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.Several interesting things about this movie  superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a "union of the soul" in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy "His Girl Friday" springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love.


I saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening, and I must say I was extremely disappointed. And I have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast Claire Danes in the lead role. Depending on what you think about Danes, she was either horribly miscast, or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 Razzie for Worst Actress. I think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. Instead, she is completely unlikeable. The other "great" actresses do an OK job, but certainly don't light up the screen. Out of all the "great" actresses in this movie, I'd say the one who did the best job was Natasha Richardson. Streep is barely in the picture, and only appears near the very end.Horrible screenplay as well. It comes off more as them reading lines than truly being "in character."


This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish.


Right, then, he's absolutely brilliant. But you must be intelligent and quick to understand his humor. He covers (attacks?) all sorts of topics, such as the first moon landing, Easter/Christmas, transvestitism, movies, and Herr Doktor Heimlich.For those of you are averse to swearing, this isn't for you. While some of us punctuate with commas and periods, he uses the f-word. Also, if you can't laugh at yourself, never watch this; you will feel the fool.Incidentally, I've watched his other stuff and even saw him perform live, and this is by far his best work. He simply shines.What might go so far as to say he is Glorious.


I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.