This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.Don't miss this one.


I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD??


I imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets  bodily, mental, societal  her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.The actors are superb  the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised.


Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.


Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts  above all  which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes  which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.


In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.


The penultimate collaboration between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart (excluding the few days Mann worked on Night Passage before parting company with the star under less than amicable circumstances), The Far Country belies its mainstream look to offer another portrait of an embittered man dragged unwillingly to his own redemption, fighting it every step of the way. This time he's a cattle driver whose response to labour problems - challenging troublesome cowhands to a gunfight at the end of the trail - results in his cattle being confiscated by John McIntire's larcenous judge of the Roy Bean school of law and order. Stealing them back and taking them across the Canadian border, he soon finds himself unwillingly drawn into the growing conflict between prospectors and the judge as he cheats or kills them out of their claims...While it's no great surprise which way Stewart turns at the end, he's a surprisingly callous critter along the way, even using his desire to just be left alone to excuse not warning a group of prospectors of an impending avalanche when he has the chance because it's not his problem. For most of the film there's really only a hair's breadth between him and McIntire, something the judge recognises immediately, revelling in the company of a kindred spirit even as he's genially planning to lynch him. In many ways the townspeople who put their faith in him probably recognise it too - despite their appeals to his dead-and-buried better nature, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that the only person who can stand up to the judge is someone almost as bad as he is.As usual with Mann there's an exceptional use of high country locations, though for once the final showdown takes place on level ground, and the film is almost perfectly cast with strong support from Walter Brennan, Harry Morgan and Ruth Roman (though Corinne Calvert's young romantic interest veers to the irritating). Sadly the great cinematography of the Canadian Rockies is done few favours by a distinctly average DVD transfer, with only the theatrical trailer as an extra.


First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!


This was an excellent idea and the scenery was beautiful but that's where it ends. It seemed like a lackluster Set It Off meets The West. The plot barely made any sense. There were so many characters and not enough time to develop their personalities. There were too may unnecessary things going on that didn't pertain to the plot nor did it help further the story along. There were also long blank moments where the plot could have been explored but was used for silence or unnecessary conversations. The script should have made more sense as well as the directing. I had a huge question mark on my head watching this movie. But the casting was great in my opinion. If you're only watching for eye candy then this is the movie for you.


In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.


Sure, if you ask any mom who's the most beautiful baby in the world, she'd tell you her son is the most amazing kid in the whole world. She's right, at least in her own world.The producers of the movie were biggie's mother and his good friend Puffy. Oh, well, do I need to say more? I'll break it down for those who doesn't want to do a simple deduction.The whole movie was fake. You may just put a few biggie's MTV video together and call it a movie.The beautiful Angela Bassett played Biggie's mother. The real one in life looks like a dog.I just wonder why he called himself biggie small. Big body Small dick? Big mouth Small sound? Big fat Small eyes? Disclaimer: I'm a person of color. So keep your racist remark to yourself.


I was excited to hear that Cesar Montano had decided to make a movie in the Cebuano language. (Not 'dialect' as most Filipinos will incorrectly refer to it as. As Cebuano and Tagalog are as mutually unintelligible as French and Spanish are to each other.) But I was greatly disappointed when i saw this movie. Being a Canadian, of Cebuano parents, I was optimistic about the revival of the Visayan film industry when I heard about this film. I was further excited to hear that it wasn't another stupid action movie or melodrama as Filipinos love these types of movies. But alas, I was short-changed.Panaghoy serves as an ego trip for Cesar Montano. Montano of course plays the hero of the movie. And when I say 'hero' I mean in the most stereotypical of manners; his function is to win the heart of a girl and lead the Bol-anons to victory against the Japanese. His character has no depth or complexity. He just fits the hero mold. The rest of the characters are one dimensional; they all fit their cookie cutter roles.I'm all for slow-moving/meditative movies but this movie was just slow moving. It didn't really meditate on anything. Just because a movie is historically-themed, a drama and slow-moving doesn't make it a well-made film.Particularly annoying is the American actor Philip Anthony. His performance was embarrassing.If Montano wanted to revive the Visayan film industry he should have really thought this through. He said he wanted to make Visayan movies that could compete at Cannes and Toronto etc. but really, this movie would have been booed and hissed at at such festivals. To get Visayan films into the mainstream consciousness he should have at least made a movie that would have attracted audiences, even if it meant sacrificing quality. Obviously he didn't think about or get information on what kind of movies garner awards at Cannes so an audience-attracting movie would have been at least a foot in the door.I'm afraid now that Visayan movies will not be made for a long time again because of this movie. If ever I said to a Filipino that I want to see more Visayan movies of course I'd get an answer like, "Visayans don't make good movies. Didn't you see Panaghoy Sa Suba?" Of course this is ludicrous as it is one example of a Visayan movie and probably the only example that anyone nowadays would be likely to see.An example of movies that are meditative, not just slow moving, are the Tagalog film Blackout or David Lynch's The Straight Story. I hate to promote the Tagalog language as it is endlessly and unfairly promoted and shoved down the throats of non-Tagalog Filipinos but for the sake of calling a spade a spade I say that Blackout is a VERY good movie. These movies rely heavily on what Hitchcock called 'pure cinema'. Images without words are used to convey the story. But I bend the definition a bit for the sake of these two movies in that these movies use images without words to convey the mood of the movie. and they do it very well. Panaghoy thinks that if they simply take sweeping shots of the landscape then they have established the mood.And what's with so many Filipino movies featuring a dying mother or grandmother???


The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy!


Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral! As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called "Velvet Revolution".


So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how "Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'" 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it.


The 100 black and white half-hour episodes of the early situation comedy "Mr. Peepers" were originally broadcast from 1952-55 on NBC. Like a lot of baby boomers this and "Ding Dong School" are my earliest memories of television. Since both ran later in syndication it is hard to tell how many of these memories are actually tied to the original broadcasts."Mr. Peepers" is worth checking out for more than its nostalgia value. It represents a very different style of situation comedy than shows like "The Honeymooners" and "I Love Lucy". The genre could have gone in two different directions in those days and ended up taking the loud abrasive path of those two shows; which is probably why they still seem contemporary. "Mr. Peepers", which was differentiated by its intelligent restrained tone, may appear slow and dull in comparison. But it's really more a matter of adjusting to the different style. Once you get into the characters it will win over most intelligent viewers. Credit should be give to the show's producer, Fred Coe, a key figure in early television whose dramatic anthologies are also worth checking out ("Philco Television Playhouse", "Lights Out", "Playhouse 90", "Producers Showcase", "Playwrights 56", "Fireside Theatre", etc.) even on kinescope."Mr. Peepers" offered a much more gentle style with Wally Cox (to be the voice of "Underdog" a few years later) in the title role, Robinson Peepers, a mild-mannered high school science teacher. His glasses were his trademark and a symbolic link to his name and role as a passive observer. The series provided Cox with an outstanding supporting cast. Tony Randall played his brash best friend, history teacher Harvey Weskit. Jack Warden played Frank Whip, the loud gym teacher whose mild bullying gave the show most of its conflict elements. There is some love interest competition involving the school's nurse, Nancy Remington (Patricia Benoit), with viewers quickly aligning with Mr. Peepers who seems a much better match for the gentle Nancy. Their on-screen marriage near the end 1953-54 season captured national attention, an early version of the "Who Shot J.R.?" frenzy.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C)


If Hollywood is to be believed, being in the the Navy is nothing but a bludge. Though the sailors may complain in chorus about the monotony of the ocean, it seems that their oceanic duties are completely non-existent, and somehow Fred Astaire finds enough free time during the day to offer dancing classes to a fleet of would-be romantics. Such is the world of Astaire and Rogers. Mark Sandrich's previous film, 'Top Hat (1935),' completely ignored the Great Depression that was then bringing America to its knees, and presented audiences with a glittering world of the rich and famous; it was the film's optimistic outlook on life that perhaps contributed to its success. Likewise, here Sandrich deliberately forgets that the life of a Naval officer is difficult and draining, and instead substitutes the duties of a sailor with an assortment of catchy lightweight musical numbers."Bake" Baker (Astaire) and Sherry Martin (Rogers) are two former dance partners whose romantic relationship fell apart after the latter rejected a marriage proposal. After Bake returns from several years of duty in the Navy, he finds Sherry as dance hostess in an unsophisticated San Francisco ballroom. While the two former lovers alternately attempt to woo and rebuff each other, Sherry's plain, music-teacher sister (Harriet Hilliard, looking really quite pretty) receives a complete makeover and tries to charm superficial sailor Bilge "Bilgey" Smith (Randolph Scott). There are plenty of the usual screwball comedy shenanigans, a few moments of mistaken identity, and even a hilarious trained monkey that steals every scene it's in. Particularly amusing is the scene in which Bake sabotages a performer's audition in order to create a window for his estranged girl; unluckily for both of them, it is an unfortunate Sherry who drinks the bicarbonate of soda and loses her ability to sing.'Follow the Fleet (1936)' was the fifth winning collaboration between Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and the third (of five) in which Sandrich directed the pair. Irving Berlin provided the film's music and lyrics, and each musical number is enjoyably lighthearted and entertaining, even if they aren't quite as memorable as those in 'Top Hat (1935),' 'Swing Time (1936)' or 'Shall We Dance (1937).' Astaire attempts to break free from his typical rich-man-about-town persona, without much success, but it's hard to imagine the performer without the boyish carefree charm that could only accompany being considerably wealthy. The side-plot of the romance between Connie and Bilge works well with the antics of the two main stars, and Harriet Hilliard (wearing a brunette wig to avoid clashing with Ginger's blonde hair) has a couple of emotional solo numbers, including "Get Thee Behind Me Satan," which was originally written for 'Top Hat.'


This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.


Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.


In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films.


I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.


IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...


This is a great movie that everyone should see. It plays like a Dean Koontz book.Bill Paxton's performance was great in that it really seems like he believes in what he is saying and doing.I don't know why viewers have to read in some kind of advocacy for religious murder in to the film. It is fiction. The ending is surprising, but fictional. So what? I think that is what makes this movie so good. SPOILER DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE. Throughout the movie, the viewer is continually shocked at the sickness of Paxton's character, the impact on the children, and the way the children handle this outrageous conduct. And then at the end, it turns out to be true. God has put him on a mission to rid the world of demons. Paxton is not clairvoyant as other viewers suggest. Sure, he is given info that he couldn't have known otherwise, but the movie goes further to show how God is "protecting" Adam through the convenient video quality problem and the complete lack of memory of the second FBI agent. The film isn't advocating Christian murder, it is merely taking the viewer on a very unexpected ride.


Scoop *** out of **** Woody Allen is definitely not my favorite director, but I enjoyed "Match Point." It was an excellent dark romantic thriller that luckily did not star Woody Allen. It did have the beautiful Scarlett Johansson in it."Scoop" is Woody Allen's latest film and though he appears in this one, it's OK. It also features Scarlett Johansson and the two of them work perfect together.Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a young college journalist who gets the scoop of a life time from the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane.) Joe heard the scoop while on a boat with the grim reaper and a bunch of other souls the Reaper has taken. One of those souls is the secretary of Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman.) She tells Joe that Peter may be the serial killer roaming the streets of England. Joe, with the scoop of a life time, travels back to the living and gives this info to Sondra, during a magic act. Sondra is at some magic show with Magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen.) She becomes a volunteer to go in a disappearing box and while she is in the box, she gets the visit from Joe. Not knowing what to do, she enlists the help of Sid Waterman to help her crack the case.This film has a nice light-hearted feel to it compared to "Match Point" and yet it all works. Johansson and Allen work great together. Allen's humor fits perfect for this story and role. Hugh Jackman is terrific as Peter Layman, the "suspected" serial killer.This is a fun little movie to see if your ever looking for one to watch. The cast ensemble works well together and the story flows and you sometimes forget that your watching Woody Allen be himself. I say give it a chance because you just might like it.


How can the viewer rating for this movie be just 5.4?! Just the lovely young Alisan Porter should automatically start you at 6 when you decide your rating. James Belushi is good in this too, his first good serious role, I hadn't liked him in anything but About Last Night until this. He was pretty good in Gang Related with Tupac also. Kelly Lynch, you gotta love her. Well, I do. I'm only wondering what happened to Miss Porter?i gave Curly Sue a 7


There was such a hype about a game show with Bill Shatner...and especially right in the wake of Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. So, of course everyone had to tune in to see what all the fuss was about on the new game show. What a disappointment! As Ben Stein so stoically and nasally says, "wooww".The only thing likable about this show was the fact that you knew it would eventually be over. Sitting through a full hour of it was like going to the dentist...you find yourself looking at the clock in what you think are 10 minute intervals, only to find out that only a minute has passed (but seemed like an eternity) since you last glanced at the clock. So, why didn't I just switch the channel? Well, probably for the same reason most other people didn't...out of sheer optimism. I mean, no one really *wants* to think that a show with Bill Shatner could actually be SO BAD.Personally, from the first 15 minutes, I never thought this was the kind of vehicle that would showcase the talents of William Shatner. My chief complaint was that the set was so dark. Watching it left me feeling depressed. You kept on wanting to get ahold of a little excitement, but there was just none to be had. There was not even enough light on the set to get a feel of energy from the audience (who you couldn't even see).Dear Network: People do not watch game shows to cure their insomnia...they watch game shows to be excited and have a good time. Please do us all a favor and lose this in the vault.


I happened upon this flick on a rainy Sunday, intending to tune-in to something else. Out of curiosity, I accessed the comments here, and found myself watching it to the end. I really didn't do so with intent -- this was one of those movies where you're "fascinated," and watch it for "another couple of minutes," until you finally just watch to the end. And the indictment of it in most of these comments made it more fascinating to view. The one comment where the person really liked it seems to be solely as a result of liking Ladd and Spano, and their earlier roles. But great isn't anywhere to be found anywhere here - story, performances, and particularly the absurd courtroom hi-jinks. We all know that Perry Mason (before Raymond Burr passed the 300-lb. mark), and Ben Matlock, are granted some leeway in cavorting around the courtroom, instead of being boringly confined to a lectern. And Matlock is especially granted the privilege of entering exhibits often by simply going to the jury and showing them, before the judge and prosecutor have even been informed of, or shown, them. No real-life judge or prosecutor would stand for this.Both Perry and Ben almost always ended the proceedings by wringing a confession of the real killer. Actually Perry nearly always did this, but often Matlock would simply present overwhelming evidence of the true culprit, pronounce it "reasonable doubt," and then leave it to the cops and prosecutors to proceed against the guilty party - sometimes on-camera, sometimes presumed at the end of the show.But that said, Holland Taylor's histrionics and the amount of leeway afforded her, in the courtroom portion of this story, made the actions of Matlock/Mason more-closely resemble the slow, often boring detail such as seen on Court TV and in real-life courtrooms.Every character in this presentation was either insipid, unsympathetic, obnoxious, boring, improbable - or some combination of two or more of these.The ending was the most banal, absurd, even silly conclusion possible - but again, fascinating because of this. Ladd and Spano are attractive individuals, and t.v. movies would appear their best forte - probably best in 2nd-lead (probably better if "3rd-") roles, even in this venue. Taylor could be cast as the aunt or mother of one of them. Give this one 1 star for the story/performances, and 3 additional for the fascination factor.


The film did not do well at the box office.I saw it in a sneak preview.I have always enjoyed the film.I live in 1 of the cities mentioned in the film where past players moved to.Not the best film ever put to screen, but enjoyable.Robin did well with his role.Best line of the film at the beginning, by Robin's character Jack: "I was that SOB!" Cleaned up here as not to offend anyone.Was glad when it came to DVD a few years back in the wide screen/letter box format.I am not a football fan or a real sports fan. But, you do not need to be one to like this film.


this movie is so complex that it can be given any description and still roll with it. you have a insecure, troubled and fascinating main character (played by Jean-Pierre Léaud) who is trapped between two (no, three) women. we listen to his social, philosophical and moral idiosyncrasies in interminable monologues, we see him working his magic around the three women that he loves. this could be the premise for a fowl movie, full of rigid, cold, uninteresting commentaries. yet director Jean Eustache manages to keep it fresh, ironic and witty. being such a long movie, one cannot but burst into laughing when, after 2 hours of speaking politely, Jean-Pierre Léaud all of a sudden screams on the phone while he remembers a cheesy line from a movie. this kind of situations are purely cinematographic and cannot be fully restored in a commentary. nor can someone restore the tragic and painfully beautiful monologue of Françoise Lebrun towards the end of the movie. 3 and 1/2 hours and worthing every minute.


Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"follow?lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.


****Excellent***Good**Fair*Poor`Go Ahead, make my Day!' The fourth picture in the series is directed by Eastwood himself (Who was rumored of directing most of Magnum Force) and he brings back the violent society from the first two films. However, the film still lacks impact and believability. This film was released in the early `80s, the time of Regan and the young republicans. The premise of a raped woman taking vengeance on her rapist doesn't appeal to this time frame. This plot would have been better for the Enforcer, which actually would have made it a good movie. What Sudden Impact needed was a plot like in Wall Street but with Dirty Harry in the middle. RATING: 3 STARS


I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!


Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!


The fourth in the "Dirty Harry" series, this film features one of the most despicable, ugliest, unlikable, profane, disgusting females I have ever seen on film: "Ray Perkins," played by Audrie Neenan. She is the modern nasty low-life version of the 1945 "Detour" character, "Ann Savage."Her foul mouth and gutter attitude turned me off so much I never watched this film again until I acquired a profanity filter which shut her up....and least some of her! Then I could enjoy the rest of the movie.Everywhere "Harry Callahan" (Clint Eastwood) goes, violence immediately follows.....within minutes! It happens so often it's almost laughable but it makes for a fast-moving, entertaining film with a satisfying ending as all the scumbag villains are eliminated one-by-one.This is a very sophomoric film that appeals to our base instincts.....and connects, sad to say. Most of us like to see these dirtballs get it in the end, and who does it better than Dirty Harry?


Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.


There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.A must stroll down Memory Lane.


I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.


This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).


There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!


This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this.


Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.


Really. Does any week go by that Oprah doesn't remind us that she was abused as child?She makes herself the focus of every interview.Oprah cannot resist commenting on the answer to every question she asks. She often interrupts guests before an answer is finished to interject her own aside or anecdote. Directors are obviously instructed to focus on her closeup reaction rather than guest's faces because that's what counts - what Oprah feels, what Oprah says.Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. It's always all about Oprah.Oprah says - Feel sorry for me, I was so poor. Feel the pain of my battle with my weight. Feel my hurt when I'm turned away from a fancy store after they've already closed. Feel good for buying my magazines and books. Feel good for my success. Feel good when you give to my charity to make me look good. Feel good for making me rich beyond belief.My interpretation of her point of view: YOU VIEWERS ARE ALL DEEPLY FLAWED AND YOU NEED MY DAILY ADVICE. I have all the answers for your life though I have nothing in common with you plebes. I have never been married nor do I want to be. I have never had to raise a family - but I know all about it. I have little respect for men or marriage. I clearly prefer people like me over others - witness "Legends Ball 2006". Gayle is my best friend but we are not gay.As of 7/31/2006, the heading on her website actually reads : "Oprah.com is your leading source for information about love, life, self, relationships, food, home, spirit and health." How presumptive and obnoxious is that ? In June 2006, she crashed two private wedding receptions in Oklahoma to gather footage for her September 2006 shows. She keeps promising to quit TV but her yapfest drags on with no end in sight.Contrary to what she thinks, Oprah is neither a queen nor a goddess nor on a personal mission from God. She's just one very lucky, overweight, black woman who copied Phil Donahue's style and called it her own. She happened to be in the right place at the right time and knew exactly how to suck up to the right demographic. Oprah is the P.T. Barnum of this age and it amazes me that people cannot see through her facade. So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and you too Oprah if you can fit that inflated ego through the door - This way now to the great egress ...


"Bela Lugosi revels in his role as European horticulturalist (sic) Dr. Lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. The good doctor's aging wife needs fluids harvested from the glands of young virgins in order to retain her youth and beauty. What better place for the doctor to maintain his supply than at the alter, where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows? Sedating them into a coma-like state, he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. That brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie.** The Corpse Vanishes (1942) Wallace Fox ~ Bela Lugosi, Luana Walters, Elizabeth Russell


First off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.


Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.


This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.


I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!


OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.


Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death.


"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.


One thing I always liked about Robert Ludlum thrillers is just when you think you have it figured out, it goes in a completely different direction. There are so many twists and turns in this film that I have a sore neck from watching.One thing I also like about director John Dahl (Kill Me Again, Rounders, Unforgettable) is that he can be depended upon to direct and, in this case, write (with his brother Rick) a good story.Now, add Nick Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, and J.T. Walsh to the cast and you have a story that will keep your interest even if they are playing characters that all of them have perfected. Dahl seems to bring out the best in folks, and this will keep you interested, and guessing, until the very end.


The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.


Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography.


Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.Waste of money. Waste of time.Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.


Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.


I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!


Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.


Everyone plays their part pretty well in this "little nice movie". Belushi gets the chance to live part of his life differently, but ends up realizing that what he had was going to be just as good or maybe even better. The movie shows us that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities we have, not the ones we do not or cannot have. If U can get this movie on video for around $10, it´d be an investment!


This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!!


Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable.


This may sound crazy to even the people who remember this show...But I remembered this as being live-action. I don't think I ever saw the cartoon. but movie? maybe. I remember it very clearly. The guy was in a building kinda like a showroom. He even had the red jacket. It was dark out and he turned into a red car and there was this guy on the second level looking down at him. The car/guy spun around and crashed through the big showroom type window and out onto the street. And then proceeded to drive off. That is all I remember. I really hope someone else out there remembers this too. If not, Maybe I'm still crazy. But I'm hoping I'm not.


God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!


I heard about this movie when watching VH1's "100 Most Metal Moments." On the segment, Gene Simmons (who played a cameo) and several other interviewees discussed how utterly awful this movie is. Unlike most people, I'm often more curious about checking out movies that have reputations for being ridiculously bad than, say, a masterpiece of cinema. The advantage of having that sort of attitude is half the time I find out that the movies are nowhere near as bad as people said, and I end up enjoying them a lot more than I initially expected. That was my experience with "Trick or Treat." Now, it's hard to make a movie about a teenage boy who receives messages from a dead heavy metal star by playing one of his vintage records backwards without people scoffing at the premise. Sure, it's certainly a strange premise, but one that's never been done before! Give the filmmakers points for originality for Pete's sake! If you're looking to buy the DVD, having no prior knowledge of the movie, don't be fooled into thinking Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons are the stars. However, though Simmons has a thankless role, Ozzy does have a funny cameo as a Reverend (that's right, a Reverend!!) who speaks out against heavy metal. For one thing, it's funny seeing Ozzy with short hair. And for another thing, you can't help but laugh at the irony. Sure, it's a cheap shot, but an effective one. The acting is pretty good. I found the performances convincing. The teen characters are horribly clichéd. So expect the usual array of jocks and nerds. And like in every one of these movies, the pretty girl is a decent person who has sympathy for the alienated main character, yet continues to go out with her jock boyfriend. Why's she going out with such a complete jerk in the first place? Because the plot needs an obstacle. No other reason. But I can't deny that one of my guilty pleasures is watching the evil jocks in these movies go down, since I was an outcast in high school. The movie kept my interest for the most part, but the third act is way too conventional and caused me to roll my eyes as there would be one predictable situation after another. But altogether the film is not at all bad and definitely worth viewing on a rainy day. (7 out of 10)


Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house. In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through.


The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person. Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap.


The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.Not recommended unless you're desperate.


This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.


Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.


This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.


Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it.


This complete mess of a movie was directed by Bill Rebane, the man partly responsible for the truly infamous anti-classic Monster a-Go Go. As I was nearing the end of The Cold I came to the unbelievable conclusion that this film was in fact even worse than that 60's shocker. The story  such as it is  is about three eccentric millionaires who invite a group of people to their remote mansion to play a series of macabre games. Whoever manages to last the pace and survive to the end will win $1,000,000. It's a very simple plot but Rebane still somehow manages to make proceedings verge on incomprehensible. Things happen. Characters are completely forgotten about. Nothing makes too much sense. And then it ends. Weirdly. I mean what the hell was that ending all about exactly? I guess you are left to draw your own conclusions. Production values and acting are without question of a pornographic movie standard. In truth Pamela Rohleder (Shelly) isn't even that good. She is so unbelievably terrible she's compelling. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about this crap-fest as a whole, it's just a bargain basement rotter.