I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.


well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!


This movie started out with some semblance of a plot, then abandoned it for an endless series of random characters and encounters that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. It was impossible to remain engaged with this film. This movie is a very cynical pile of garbage made by some people with animation skills but totally lacking in creativity or storytelling ability. It is a shockingly bad effort coming from a major studio. Clearly there are morale and motivation problems at Disney, not to mention a complete lack of oversight and quality control. That management allowed this movie to see the light of day speaks volumes about their incompetence and desperation. This movie joins my very short "worst movies of all time" list.


first, someone mentioned here that because this was released in "limited" quantity it means that it SHOULD be bad...that is exactly what the "big five" Hollywood studios would like everyone to think so they can "pass" or "ignore" features that are not desirable, without loosing face or imagine by censoring them directly. to the point, this production has been released "limited" because is considered "unpatriotic" by certain individuals.now i absolutely loved this feature; i find it way better then "Charlie Wilson's War" even if it is a "fictional" account of something that "never" happens but is always so OBVIOUS.this goes to anyone and everyone interested or affected by present American foreign policies, "home" or "aboard". the "turakistan" country and "the emerald city" are definitely trying to resemble Iraq and Baghdad just as much as the corporation "Tamerlane" goes for "haliburton" (with the vice- president Dan Aykroyd playing Dick Cheney, LOL).there are quiet a moments actually where the movie is DEAD SERIOUS, not even sarcastic anymore (main example would be as how John Cusack character deals with his depression, but not only). i found that ALL the characters can be related to something/someone or specific stereotypes. now word of advise; if YOU are not politically active, especially towards the aspects of "globalization" , you will likely not enjoy this feature much since most of its content and inside "jokes" are targeting certain "personalities" that are not "visibile" to the general public on daily bases...(main exception would be Hilary Duff that plays the well known materialistic pop star, need i say name(S)?). at its CORE the feature is an anti-globalization gig, period. the message is unmistakeably delivered with comic vengeance. Joan has a line at one point that goes like this: "and here we have a book written by you know who, about how i conquered the world and resolved the issues with my dad".PRICELESS)))the sister and brother Cusacks play good together as always, same as in "Grosse PointeBlank" i would say a bit more "mature".Marisa Tomeihere does not show her butt and breasts to "impress" us (like she did recently in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"), but instead she has a very serious role, and manages to pull it off quiet well.many critics don't get it (can not do so, or do not want to). this IS NOT a "regular" movie but more of a comic documentary. this feature stands to deliver a message and NOT to get Oscars, or have "visuals" sort of getting the viewer into buying the latest "HDTV experience" TV sets...i have noticed even in my local papers that this movie gets bad re-views because is not "artistic", while PRO Iraq war movies get good thumbs up for being "balanced" apparently and "engaging".makes one wonders how much all the world mainstream media is concentrated in the hands of a bunch of guys...i bet this feature will prove a hit overseas as much more then it will in north America. as i mentioned before, it is all a satire about American foreign policy and how it has been hijacked by "special interests" groups... having the "regular" American soldier wearing the "Tamerlane" corporate logo on its combat dress is pretty insulting BUT EFFECTIVE in showing reality as it IS, or will be soon the way things go so far.some PRICELESS shots: upon "liberation", the country gets invaded commercial advertisements; a hilarious scene about how future journalists will likely gather "news"("anything is got to be better then this x-box bullocks"))); soldiers dealing with their "frustration"; overall, i do not recommend this to "conservatives" or "hard core" patriots of some kind or another.this feature is not made to reach to the "minds of souls" of the people(as mainstream propaganda and commercial interests always try to do so).instead it contains a message well defined for realists, and towards some ideological goals apparently "always" short of realizing.


Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor.


I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived "twist" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 4/10


*SPOILER ALERT: I wish I could discuss this without revealing specific plot points, but I can't. Sorry.*I was looking for an IMDb review of the George C. Scott movie when I stumbled across the summary and reviews for this version. It had so many positive reviews that I decided to order it even though: (a)while truncated and rushed, I thought George C. Scott embodied the tortured nature (and physical appearance) of the book's Rochester to a T; and (b)even while looking at the DVD's cover, I was thinking "Isn't Timothy Dalton too good-looking for the role?" The latter concern was reinforced by the fact that I decided to re-read the book while the DVD was on backorder. That said, the minute I started watching this, I was captivated. At first it was disconcerting to hear 1840's dialog spoken as written--with little or no attempts at modernization--but Dalton and Clarke threw themselves into it so thoroughly, that I actually enjoyed the fact that the adapters trusted the audience to follow archaic speech. To have so much of the book up on the screen was an extra bonus. I know someone who won't watch any versions of Jane Eyre because "who wants to see a film about a man who keeps a poor crazy woman in the attic?" Frankly, if someone who hadn't read the book stumbled across the hour and a half or two hour versions, they would think that's pretty much all the story entails--Rochester's secret and its affect on everyone around him. Luckily, this version is actually about Jane Eyre's whole life.Some people have criticized the casting. Dalton is too dashing; Clarke is too reserved. I can't argue against the first point, but he is so "in the moment" that I believe he IS Rochester. To me, Clarke's performance is on the mark. Jane Eyre is quiet, guarded. If one remembers the book, so much of the adult Jane's fieriness and passion occurs during her private struggles. Some of the criticisms baffle me. Reviewers say Clarke is too short or isn't pretty enough. The book goes on ad infinitum about how small and plain Jane is. Ms. Clarke shouldn't be tall and the filmmakers toned down her looks to make Jane's declarations of her lack of beauty credible. She can scarcely help it if Dalton is tall. Some say there is no chemistry between the leads. What?!! The scene when Jane finally comes out of her room after the wedding fiasco fairly vibrates with passion and longing and sadness and regret--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.I do agree with some of the other criticisms. I too missed more scenes with Helen Burns and the Rivers siblings. Some of the dialog was oddly truncated. When Rochester declares, "Jane, you misjudge me. I do not hate her because she is mad," I waited for the rest of the exchange when Rochester explains how if Jane were to go mad, he would still love and care for her. It's a powerful moment in the book, and I wish it had been included. I think it was a mistake to bring a scene with Rochester into the part of the story where Jane is on her own. It might have been done for clarity's sake, but I found it jarring. I wanted the sly humor of the scene where Jane opines that Rochester's ardor will cool and he'll become gruff again, but he may "like" her again by and by. Dalton's performance is so good that the rare misstep is glaring--when Rochester weeps in the library, I saw him as an actor doing a crying scene, not as Rochester. As for the sets, if anyone has ever caught an episode of the 1960's show "Dark Shadows," one knows what to expect--very stark and sometimes rickety looking interiors. Others have commented thoroughly and succinctly about the make-up job Rochester sports at the end. Yikes! It IS bad. The conclusion is too abrupt. After all that anguish and suspense, I wanted a more rounded off ending. And, on my copy of the DVD, having credits at the beginning and end of all eleven 25-30 minute episodes gets to be a bit much. That said, I am so glad I have this film and will watch it again and again.


I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view."Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage."Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.


I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really "get it" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to "get", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like "exciting" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.


does anyone think that this show actually helps some people, or does it only anger the people who watch it? when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat Roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat Roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity.


Damp telling of the American Revolution.When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.


This is a great film. From reading other reviews, I can see that I'm not the only one who shed a tear. Tamilyn Tomita acted with such skill and conviction, she made the ending heartfelt and memorable. In the hands of a lesser actress, her last scene would have seemed trite and corny. One would never guess this film was done on a tight, limited budget. The cinematography is gorgeous and there are a number of big name actors. The script is so wonderful, I can see why they all wanted to be in it. If you watch the long, long list of credits at the end, you'll see that half of Hawaii pitched in to make this film happen, and for good reason. The soundtrack (available on CD) is absolutely beautiful and sets the mood throughout the film. My only "complaint" is that I almost didn't want the film to end.


SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC


Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.


I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.Figure that out.


This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8


This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive.


I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)


I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.)


A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..


Kurt Russell is strong and (mostly) silent in this futuristic action-thriller from Paul Anderson (Event Horizon, Resident Evil.) Set on a garbage-dump planet, Soldier plays like a cross between Rambo and Shane, with Russell barely speaking as the title character, an "obsolete" genetic soldier left for dead. The supporting cast of colonists, including Connie Nielsen, Sean Pertwee and a surprisingly hirsute Michael Chiklis, is able. They spend most of the movie being scared of Russell, and the rest of it running for their lives. Russell's performance here is one of the best he's ever given. With almost no words to say, he conveys emotion, feeling and meaning with looks and glances. It is almost a mime performance. When the action sequences kick into gear, he kicks ass--and does so in a strong, silent, matter-of fact way. There are flaws. Jason Scott Lee is brutish as a "superior" genetic soldier. Jason Isaacs does a great impression of Frank Burns from M*A*S*H as a weaselly commanding officer, and Gary Busey busts a gut (and nearly busts his girdle) as Todd's mentor. This is an underrated, and excellent sci-fi flick, and recommended for anyone who wants a second visit to the universe of Blade Runner--David Webb Peoples wrote both screenplays.


This is one of the best Bollywood movies i have seen up until now. Family and friends feel the same way about it. This movie is really romantic and dramatic at the same time. In my opinion we need more films or movies like this to keep the south Asian culture alive. Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao acted extremely well in this, also their couple attracts a lot of people to the movies. This is a must see movie, it's a family and romantic movie. This movie is also from the makers of Hum Saath Saath Hain and Hum Apke Hain Kon. This movie is their best right now... the setting of the movie was beautiful which also is a huge attraction. This movie is must see... recommended to everyone!!


The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.


I was raised watching the original Batman Animated Series, and am an avid Batman graphic novel collector. With a comic book hero as iconic as Batman, there are certain traits that cannot be changed. Creative liberties are all well and good, but when it completely changes the character, then it is too far. I purchased one of the seasons of "The Batman" in the hopes that an extra bonus feature could shed some light on the creators' reasoning for making this show such an atrocity. In an interview on the making of "The Batman," one of the artists or writers (I'm unsure which) said that "We felt we shouldn't mess with Batman, but we could mess with the villains." So, they proceeded to make the Joker into an immature little kid begging for attention, the Penguin into some anime knockoff, Mr. Freeze into a super-powered jewel thief, Poison Ivy into a teenage hippie, and countless other shameful acts which are making Bob Kane roll over in his grave. To sum it all up: I wish I had more hands so I could give this show FOUR THUMBS DOWN. It squeezes by my rating with a 2 out of 10 simply because it uses the Batman name. Warner Bros...rethink this! Please!


Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!


The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!


This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later). As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations  a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information  Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them "outer space action figures") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again  we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film  particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects  even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads  Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence  a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful  it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film  subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all  that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play  maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all
(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie.


This movie works because it feels so genuine. The story is simple and realistic, perfectly capturing the joys and anxieties of adolescent love and sexuality that most/all of us experienced during our teen years.The actors are as natural as figures in a documentary but are as convincing and as charismatic as seasoned performers. The dialogue is fresh and honest... and thankfully not filled to the brim with cutesy pop culture references. Also, the cinematography is at once gritty and beautiful, bringing the Lower East Side setting to life in a very tangible way.On an artistic level, I love this movie because it reminds me of great Italian neo-realism films like The Bicycle Thief and La Strada. Movies rarely feel as "real" as this does ... or as Bicycle Thief did. And the only other movie I've seen that treats teen sexuality with the same level of seriousness is Elia Kazan's Splendor in the Grass. Writer/director Peter Sollett deserves tremendous praise. This film is quite an achievement.On a personal level, I am always glad to see a movie that treats members of ethnic America with love and respect. As an Italian-American, I hate the way my own people come off in the cinema (as racist, womanizing, criminal geniuses in irritatingly popular epics), and my aggravation on this count makes me acutely sensitive to other groups and their awful silver screen representations. Hispanics and Asians in particular seem cursed to playing villains in Westerns and action movies. (Good thing Gong Li didn't try to become famous in America!)Of course, thanks largely to the rise of indie pictures, and the influence of Miramax, we are seeing a few more pictures about ethnic characters here and there ... but Raising Victor Vargas is easily one of the best. While I do really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is a refreshing change that Raising Victor Vargas is played straight (with less exaggerated and broadly-drawn characters) while still being very funny in its own right. Finally! Latino characters worthy of note. I have a feeling that this is a film that will be remembered.Of course, now that he has made this wonderful picture about a family from the Dominican Republic, I hope Peter Sollett gets around to making a movie about Italians soon! :) - Marc DiPaolo


This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.


Bill and Ted's bogus journey is possible the most excellent film I have ever watched. Though the acting and scenery etc is poor, who cares. The story line is brilliant and the jokes and words they come up with are most excellent, the ideas are great as well. I recommend anyone to see this classic. The best part is obviously when they 'melvin' death, i was cracking up for 10 minutes and missed the next part of the film. This is so much better then the first one, which was great as well. Possibly the funniest movie of all time!!!!! I think the best parts of the film however, are when Bill and Ted shout excellent and play the guitar solo, it was hilarious. Rock on Bill, Ted and Eddie Van Halen, bring out a 3rd film!!


Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...


This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.


I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.Overall, a waste of time.


This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.


Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of "point of hear" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002.


This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.


My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A "Sci Fi Thriller". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.


I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.


Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior.


OK so I hear about this new Justin Timberlake movie coming out which features some pretty big names. I mean great actors like, The Freeman aka Morgan Freeman, an asset to Hollywood, however completely wasted in this film. Then we got Kevin Spacey, who I've been a great fan of ever since I watched American Beauty and The Usual Suspects. Both of these great actors probably signed on to the movie thinking it was going to be a great movie as I did when I heard the story. Then enter a fresh faced Justin Timberlake. I say fresh faced because this is his first movie and those rotten tomatoes haven't hit him yet. Well the reason for that , I might add, is because no one will ever see this movie or even bother reading this review. The movie is so terrible that when i got into the first 15 minutes of it. The characters were so one dimensional that it makes some Bible characters look like the Don Corleone. They got the one liners and sound-bite worthy stuff. The token troubled black guy (LL COOL J) who is with a gorgeous woman who he otherwise would not even belong with in real life. The captain is this short whiny guy who speaks in such a high tone. And what crappy movie would be complete without the hero becoming richer because of an experience. Oh and lots of gun fire, i mean a whole lot. SPOILER(NOT!!!) THe kind of gun fire that leaves everyone in the police force who's crooked dead and the hero prevails. They got flame throwers and rocket launchers, REally no kidding.Bottom line if you want to see Edison its because you are a great fan of one of the actors, or a great fan of Justin Timberlake, to all the 13 year old girls out there, enjoy!! I wish i had more hands, because then I would have more thumbs, because this movie is so terrible because then i could give it so many thumbs down that thumbs down would no longer mean anything because this movie is so terrible because it sucks so badly that it made me laugh out of frustration about the story line because it just would not end because the firing and yelling just kept happening.MAY G*D HAVE MERCY ON US ALL and save us from these terrible movies. Well it could be worst, another RNB terrible actor turned singer turned terrible actor is usher, hehe check out IN THE MIX lol, or even Get rich or die trying'. Now the special thing about that movie is that its got 30+ year old men, playing 16 or even younger teens. I could go on with these.


this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Poohwhats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.


Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastichis portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.


I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride.


Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.


This beautifully filmed and scripted episode was let down for two reasons. 1) Perhaps it was the morality of the 1950s talking, but no man left alone on an asteroid for years would react with such hysterical negativity to the gift of a female android. 2) It wasn't an android at all, but a woman, the beautiful Jean Marsh.The popularity of the sex doll industry in the coming decades could have traced its origins back to this episode if they'd done it properly. In fact, the modernization of sex-bots are in the news as I speak.Robots were not new to movies or television when this episode was made, so they could have at least had her act like one. Her fleshiness would then have added a creepy element. Instead, it becomes a nice little love story about two humans on faraway star.The Twilight Zone always stretched the imagination and credulity. Normally no one cared. But this episode seemed hamstrung by a Calvinist morality eschewing what would have amounted to masturbation with a machine, or downright carelessness.


The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie.


I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses".


i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.


This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see!


Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.And then there's the twist ending. The "expected" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the "WOW, that's what it was all this time" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.


Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.My question is: "Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.


There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.


I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.


...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually "fabulous" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it


This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making.


Every once in a while in the wonderful world of horror,diamonds are crafted, and one becomes completely awestruck by its sheer brilliance. This is no less than a diamond!! This is a film brimful of eeriness,chilling anticipation, and dark atmosphere, and I think it's safe to say, one of my favourite horror films of all time! And of course it contains probably the single most, flat out scary sequence in the whole of history of horror! Every time I see the film, and it gets up to the point where you know the inevitably will happen, I try to remember exactly when I will be frightened out of my wits, but it never fails to happen; I never get it right, and I find myself as terrorized as the first time I saw it!! Now, it must be said, to scare a jaded horror fan like that, that is nothing short of pure perfection. Unlike the Americans, the Brits know their subtleties, they take pride in the art of acting, they do not need any special effect in order to convey atmosphere, they rely on the power of the potent story, and the creepiness(in this case)of suggestion and anticipation. Every single element is impeccable, from the set pieces, the acting, the story, to the menacing atmosphere. Pauline Moran surely could make the devil whimper, that's for sure!! As an end note, if you for some demented reason don't like this piece of insanity, then you honestly don't know what horror is all about, and frankly do not deserve to know it either. Thank you!


This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like "The Thing that wouldn't die" doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking "When is it going to end"? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap.


A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.


This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.


I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.


Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.


All the talent Mr. Sooraj Barjatya showed in his first 3 movies, I thought were all an accident because his 4th one Main prem ki diwani hoon was so bad. But I have to say it wasn't an accident. This guy is talented and the way he has done Vivah is just brilliant. Right from the first scene it affects you. the sequences between shahid and amrita are awesome. The chemistry between these two actors gives glimpses of that between srk and kajol. As usual Alok Nath as the good and loving father is fantastic, so is Anupam Kher. But its a Shahid-Amrita film.Amrita looks good in most scenes though shahid does look a little young to get married but he does a good job of a shy but yet morally strong groom. this movie will especially be liked by those who has gone through such beautiful moments in their life. All in all a brilliant film. hats off to Mr. Sooraj Barjatya...


This is a quite slow paced movie, slowly building the story of an ex stripper who begins a new family life with a complete stranger. The viewer slowly feels that there's something wrong here ...I really loved this movie even though it leaves a slight bitter taste in the end. It is clever, well paced and very well acted. Both Philippe Toretton and Emmannuelle Seigner are deeply into their characters. The little son "pierrot" is also very touching.A thriller which does not seem like one. A very unconventional movie, very particular atmosphere throughout the whole movie though you might feel awkward a few times with a couple of scenes.i'll give it a 8/10 !!


Playing out as a sort of pre runner to The Great Escape some 13 years later, this smashing little British film plays it straight with no thrills and dare do well overkill. First part of the movie is the set up and subsequent escape of our protagonists, whilst the second part concentrates on their survival whilst on the run as they try to reach Sweden. The film relies on pure characters with simple, effective, and yes, believable dialogue to carry it thru, and it achieves its aims handsomely. No little amount of suspense keeps the film ticking along, and as an adventure story it works perfectly for the time frame it adheres to, so a big thumbs to the film that may well be the first of its type ?.7/10


I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.Sure, "The Heiress" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why.


Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...***SPOILERS***Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left......avoid this movie.


The idea is a very smart title the film has a serious tongue in cheek feel to it. But it is so subtle you don't know how to read it! Are these guys doing a full blown comedy or is there something else going on. The little dialogue the film has isn't very delicate and this adds to the power of the film. If all the sound was switched off from the film it actually wouldn't take anything away from the film. The physical actions or the art of showing is so strong that it on its own carries the entirety of the story.I is a blessing and with the blessing the emotion is followed by shame. I first say this film as part of a "black" film festival. After watching the film i was so impressed by the work. But then i asked myself what next? Where can someone else see this work? The common association of art without purpose isn't to be found here. You can see the intention in the design from the start to the finish. The usage of African music the style the casting everything seems planned and for a reason. The character development is amazing. The casting i think is the strongest aspect of the film; the characters are easily defined within 2 minutes of the 6 minutes of actual film.We need to see more of these kinds of films, there really needs to be greater support for the development of short films across the board.


I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie. The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie. The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end. A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off.


Without "mental anachronism", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the "disenchantment of the world". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of "primitive thought". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD
 thank you in advance.


In an interview, David Duchovny said he hasn't been able to watch even the first hour of this film - and neither should you. The scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around - change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the X-Files. He's on autopilot for the whole film. Brad Pitt overacts appallingly.


IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS DESCRIPTION: First telecast by CBS on November 30, 2003, the made-for-TV Finding John Christmas is a sequel to the previous year's A Town Without Christmas, with Peter Falk reprising his role as versatile guardian angel Max. Valerie Bertinelli plays Kathleen McAllister, a divorced small-town nurse whose depression... over the fact that the hospital ER she maintains may be forced to shut down because of a $100,000 debt is briefly lifted when she spots a newspaper picture taken by photojournalist Noah Greeley (David Cubitt). The picture shows an act of bravery performed by Noah's firefighter brother Hank (William Russ), who mysteriously left town 25 years ago and hasn't been seen since. Hank would like to quietly slip back into town without explanation or fanfare, but this proves impossible when Noah's newspaper posts a $50,000 reward to identify Hank, known only to the public as "John Christmas." And there's something, very, very curious about that photo: It also shows a Santa Claus suit seemingly floating in midair without an occupant. That elusive "Santa" is of course the angelic Max, who pops up now and again throughout the story in a variety of guises to solve problems, dispense advice, tie up loose plot strands--and even share a musical duet with Kathleen's talented daughter Socorro (Jennifer Pisana).INTERESTED IN HAVING A COPY: WRITE TO ME HERE: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM


Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.