It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line. And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done. Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty. And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not. First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs. Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious. And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes. That's entertainment, folks. It's great! Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.


Samuel Fuller is an interesting filmmaker, mainly because he had some very inconsistent politics in his films. While "Shock Corridor" and "The Naked Kiss" represented the hypocrisies and lunacy of America and "The Big Red One" was an effective portrait of the horrors of war, "Merrill's Marauders" painted war as necessary hell and "Pickup on South Street" is about the dangers of communist spies. All of his films make for very entertaining viewing, and even though he was often pigeonholed as a b-filmmaker, Fuller was just as good as any of the major studio contractors. "Pickup on South Street" is no exception, and despite the dated themes, the film-making style is remarkably ahead of its time. Its also a very quickly-pace, tight, and occasionally brutal film noir.The acting across the board is fantastic. Richard Widmark makes for a great anti-hero and Jean Peters is quite sexy as a girl who works for her communist spy boyfriend. The show stealer is Thlema Ritter however, in an absolutely delightful performance as a police stoolie. The angles Fuller employs are great, making the acting sequences all the more exciting and brutal (this is very violent for its time). The camera continuously moves around just as Tarantino and his school would do forty years later. "Pickup on South Street" is a great action-paced noir thriller. "Shock Corridor" remains my favorite Fuller film, but this is a very close second. (8/10)


Any movie with "National Lampoon" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience."National Lampoon's European Vacation" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible "comic" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste.


On paper, this movie would sound incredibly boring. The idea of a 75-year-old man traveling the country-side on a riding mower certainly doesn't have much appeal to it, but the real power behind the film is its charm and its intelligence. Writers will not find a better study of what makes a movie work than "The Straight Story."The perfect example of this is a scene in which Alvin meets a runaway teenage girl. She's pregnant and afraid of what her parents would do if they found out. Alvin tells her a story about his own kids, long ago. He had them each take a stick and break it, which they could easily do. Then he had them bundle the sticks and try to break them. "That bundle," he said, "is family." So many other movies would feel compelled to continue and make sure we knew that an individual could be broken but together the members were stronger. "The Straight Story" realizes that we're smart enough to understand this and simply leaves us to contemplate the thought and draw our own conclusions.Alvin's journey across Iowa is full of such refreshingly un-Hollywood character interactions. Each interaction is full of warmth and humor, and Alvin is so cute riding his mower that we can't help but smile as he makes his way to Wisconsin to make peace with his brother, Lyle, who has suffered a stroke. And the simplicity of the final scene emphasizes that the real story here is not the destination but the journey. It's a journey in which Alvin shares his life with everyone he meets--to their benefit and ours. It's a slow, simple, relaxing ride meant to remind us of all that we've lost with the urbanization of America."The Straight Story" is the rare live-action "G"-rated movie that truly should not be missed. Grade: A


A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism.


What a fun movie experience! I was expecting a sappy kids movie and found that I enjoyed it more than my teens. Take a tissue, it's not sad, just 'moving' in parts. Finally, its a 'feel good' flick for the whole family. Note: It's 2+ hours, so consider leaving the littlest 'squirmers' home for this one. AP


I've always enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's versions of the Shakespeare classics, as he always does a very good job, but in this movie, the one who lifts the whole movie, is none other than "the-always-great-actor" Laurence Fishburne. Surely he has made some poor choices in films, even though he's a wonderful actor, but in this one we're truly given the real Othello: the passion, the intensity of jealousy as it grows stronger alongside with Fishburne's well portrayed paranoia and, furthermore, we're finally given a black Othello!I don't think they could have chosen a better Othello. Who else could have given him that blend of sympathy/antipathy, love/hatred and, not to forget, those fiery eyes...? Branagh is good as always, but not at his peak, Iréne Jacob's Desdemona is fairly good but a bit bleak, whilst Laurence Fishburne truly lifts it and makes it a very interesting and enjoyable movie. Do watch it.


this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies.


I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like "Citizen Kane" and "Seven Samaurai." However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and "Paulie" doesn't qualify for that.The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. ("I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, "Paulie" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of "Paulie." I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, "let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning." So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching.


Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the "no expectation" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the "romantic" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do.


Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.


Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.4/10


This is a great movie to see with your girlfriend. My friend and I both love dance and ran into this movie at the video store. We had to get it. With no violence and such a warming story its a great movie to relax to and just enjoy your night. I would recommend this movie to any family or just a bunch of girls looking for a cute movie.


Domestic Import was a great movie. I laughed the whole time. It was funny on so many levels from the crazy outfits to the hilarious situations. The acting was great. Alla Korot, Larry Dorf, Howard Hesseman, and all the others did an awesome job. Because it is an independent film written by a first-time writer, it doesn't have the clichés that are expected of other comedies, which was such a relief. It was a unique and interesting and you fall in love with the characters and the heart-warming story. I heard it was based on a true story? If so, then that is hilarious (and amazing!). I highly recommend this movie.


As soon as I heard about this film I knew I had to check it out. Well, I heard about it, then I found the trailer. After that, that's when I knew I had to see it. And I am so glad I did. You want to see classic television mixed with zombies? No? Then get lost.FIDO is a movie unlike anything I've ever seen. Well, actually, it kind of is. It's kind of like a Lassie episode and a Zombie film. Though when combined, it feels completely new and original. FIDO is about a little boy named Timmy and his new pet Fido. Well this new pet ain't no squawking parakeet or some potty-trained puppy. It's a re-animated dead guy...a zombie. A large radiation cloud engulfed Earth which led to all of the dead rising, which ensued the Zombie Wars. Though through the genius of Reinhold Giger, lead scientist of ZomCon, he discovered that if you destroy the brain, the zombie will perish, thus giving us the edge and the win in the Zombie War. Though due to lingering radiation, whoever dies becomes a zombie. Which can be a problem especially with the elderly. Though Zomcom steps up again with more breakthroughs, especially with the Domestication Collar. The collar stops the zombie's need for human flesh and thus making it harmless as a household pet. But not all is perfect in this Zombie Utopia, collars break, old people die and....well I'll just let you watch this incredibly unique flick.FIDO is a fantastic idea brought to fruition. With an all-star cast, and great writing FIDO rises above most in the comedy/horror genre. There are plenty of funny and original situations that really had me entertained. Though after seeing the film, I personally think the movie would have been better in black and white. At less than 90 minutes, the movie doesn't go on for too long and moves from scene to scene at a good rate. It'll probably end up being a cult-classic of sorts, since it's not really a laugh out loud comedy or even a horror movie. It's a comedy/family/zombie film immersed in the 1950 vibe. If you thought anything I said here was interesting by all means check this film out. But if you're still on the fence, swing your leg back over and stay there. 8.5 outta 10


"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.


Maslin Beach is a real nudist/naturist beach south of Adelaide, on the Fleurieu Peninsula, in South Australia. It is also the name of an Australian film that used the beach as a location.Maslin Beach is labelled a romantic comedy. This could be slightly misleading, as it is not a 'hilarious' film, nor is it really romantic in the traditional sense, but it does have light-hearted moments. Much as life itself, there are also moments of sadness too. It is also entirely shot at the nudist beach mentioned above, and nudity runs throughout the length of film. The viewer quickly learns to accept this as normal, and concentrate on the plot, not the copious amount of flesh.Simon and Marcie (Michael Allen and Eliza Lovell) arrive by car at a beach-side car park. They take their belongings to the beach, and while they are walking, a voice-over from Simon talks about his confusion about what real love is. The rest of the film is an exploration of this, framed by one complete day at the beach. The basic story is of what happens to Simon's love life, but there are also many other characters highlighted in several separate vignettes.When they arrive at the beach, both Simon and Marcie appear bored with each other. Marcie sees them as a 'Romeo and Juliet' romantic couple. Simon is just bored with it all. Next, we are introduced to Gail (Bonnie-Jaye Lawrence), Paula (Zara Collins) and Jenny (Jennifer Ross). They are walking down the beach together discussing Gail's chances of finding the 'perfect' man, aided by the 'powers' of a necklace that brought good luck to her Grandmother. However, there are many more interesting people on the beach, not all of them 'attractive' and young (part of the realism of this film).To service the beach's patrons there is a flatulent, short-sighted ice-cream salesperson with a van. This is Ben (Gary Waddell), who is a friend of Simon, and is also his unofficial counsellor. I would think that this character is the main comic element. It is hard to say though, as there is nothing about Ben that would make you laugh aloud, unless you were intoxicated, male and very young! Maslin Beach does have a major redeeming feature though, and that is that it does not dwell too long on any one subject. As the quality of acting is variable, the script is suspect and everything about Maslin Beach is cheap, the lack of continuity is a positive boon. In fact, there is something about this film (not the nudity) that I find appealing. It is hard to define what it is, but it could be something to do with its bluntness, and downright 'Aussie' attitude to carnal matters.The camera work in Maslin Beach deserves a mention. Sometimes it is very good, with some stunning static shots and 'pans' of the beach, cliffs and a sunset. As nudity is a major factor in this film, framing is an important aspect of the camera work. There is no sense of gratuity in the framing, meaning that the framing is done so that the camera does not dwell on 'private' body parts. This helps to ease any sense of viewer discomfort from being within the subject's 'personal space', and makes the film more tasteful. Not an easy task, given the location for filming.Maslin Beach is neither a 'skin flick' for post-pubescent, testosterone charged males, nor a 'Mills and Boon' romance for under-appreciated women. Maslin Beach does not seem to fit anywhere in genre. The actors are not 'attractive' in the Baywatch sense, and are just 'normal' people that you would see on the beach anywhere. It does not have a message to put across and it would not even act as a tourism advertisement, other than perhaps to Naturists. Apart from the Australian accent, the filming could have been in any sunny country. What makes this film distinctly Australian is the fact that it is pointless (cinema verite?), and only Australian Cinema, and other medium sized National Cinemas, could consider such a rash option. At the same time, these medium sized cinemas have room for experimentation in the quest for identity, and a 'flop' is not going to damage their reputation too much. It is always possible, given that Maslin Beach is now a collector's item, that the film might become internationally popular, but it is very unlikely.During this critique, I have been sounding highly negative, at times, about Maslin Beach. This is not the real position, as I found the film very easy to watch. I enjoyed it as a reflection of near reality and real people (and problems). The problems confronted in the film are those of the everyday, and a little low on spectacle. This does it no harm in my view, and I wish that more films dealt with the everyday like this. There is a connection here with the cinemas of Europe, and with French film in particular. They rarely deal with major disasters or catastrophes, but with the everyday. Hollywood is in direct opposition to this, and rides the crest of the hyper-real action/drama/angst wave. The pace too, is much faster in Hollywood, but it is not reality. Maslin Beach is not exactly 'Jacques Tati' either, but it is on the right track, even if it does ignore issues of multi culturalism, equality, gender orientation and so on, that are of such importance in current cinema. I am sure that you will either love or hate this film, with little room for a middle ground.


Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known.


Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.


I went to this movie only because I was dragged there and I would have left again immediately because the audience consisted mainly of elderly people and I felt out of place. However, the film was utterly fascinating and far from being targeted towards old people. The characters were all very real and believable and I found myself discussing the film, the characters and the storyline for hours afterwards. There are a few quite engrossing scenes in there but they are necessary and help you to understand the situation much better. All in all, this is a great and valuable film - slightly off mainstream but that does not mean that this film cannot be enjoyed by people who prefer mainstream. It's a thrilling and interesting movie experience.


Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.


The Waiting Womans Ward of a large lying-in hospital, with all its joys and sorrows, is the place where LIFE BEGINS.This nearly forgotten drama is a fine little soap opera, replete with comedy and tragedy, all tied into the lives of the maternity staff and their patients. The frankness with which the subject matter is handled points up the movie's pre-Code status.Marvelous Aline MacMahon, as the sympathetic head nurse, is the calm center of the film, the rock around which all the currents flow. Able to handle any crisis or emergency, she is the mothers' best, sometimes last, friend. Surrounding MacMahon is a bevy of excellent costars: Loretta Young as a convicted murderess released from prison long enough to give birth; Eric Linden as her frightened young husband; brassy Glenda Farrell as a dame who hates children; sweet Clara Blandick as a very mature mother in for her sixth birthing; Preston Foster & Hale Hamilton as thoughtful, compassionate doctors and Frank McHugh as a comically frantic father-to-be.Movie mavens will recognize Bobs Watson as a wee tyke who wants to see the Stork; Paul Fix as a nervous husband who promises to behave like a `little soldier;' Gilbert Roland as a distraught Italian husband and Elizabeth Patterson as a snooty doctor's wife interested in adopting Farrell's son - all uncredited.There are a few absurdities in the plot - some of the mothers are obviously much too old; Farrell becomes blatantly drunk in the Ward but none of the staff seem to notice; an obviously psychotic patient is able to wander around at will - but this really only enhances the quirky entertainment value of the film and keeps things from becoming too serious.


My older sister was born in March of 1985 and has cerebral palsy. in her 22 years of life, she has seen nothing but the walls of our house and her school which is also occupied with other disabled kids. i have been the butt of everyone's jokes because my sister is disabled, and i still think to this day that nobody is, or ever will give a damn about her and her condition. Then i saw this film.I knew what Christy's family was going through. but they were lucky. Christy could talk, he could communicate, and he had artistic skills. my sister can walk, but she can't utter a word, and she can't use her hands to do anything but grab onto things. but this film made me realize there were other people in the world like my sister, and the ending (to tell the truth) made me cry. AND I'VE SEEN SHAWSHANK!!! This film is seriously underrated, and it shouldn't. This movie tells people something. that people should be proud of their own lives. thinking you can't write well? this guy wrote with his foot. thinking you're not attractive? this guy got turned down by lots of girls, because of his condition. not the fastest runner? christy couldn't even stand up.My point: Parents of young children, i suggest your children watch this movie with you, so they'll know the next time they see someone on the street in a wheelchair, they don't stare at them like they're aliens. My sister got millions of stares, and it breaks my heart to think that this is still happening to many people. This film will teach people, that people who might not seem "normal" are people too. 10/10


While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.


It's a short movie from David Lynch with just 8 minutes, but it got all the "Lynchian ingredients"! It's mysterious, dark, inconclusive, eerie, and strange; and before the blond girl starts to talk it's even a bit scary! The soundtrack is exceptional to create this odd atmosphere because it's also sinister and mysterious
 About the setting itself, it hasn't the "traditional" red curtains, but it has socking purple painted walls, which give it an equally effect of eeriness.The plot is about a girl who's locked in a dark room and she cries for help; then comes another girl who starts talking to her in a mysterious way, saying she's there just because of her fault
 We don't know what did happen or what will happen next
 it ended unsolved and puzzling, as a good Lynch movie must end! It's a great short, despite some amateurish acting. The girls are professional actresses, but I think their acting could have been better in this short.


Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many.


In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with " HEY YOU " and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being " I have nothing to say " . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniestDIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one


One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.


Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.


"A total waste of time" Just throw in a few explosions, non stop fighting, exotic cars a deranged millionaire, slow motion computer generated car crashes and last but not least a Hugh Hefner like character with wall to wall hot babes, and mix in a blender and you will have this sorry excuse for a movie. I really got a laugh out of the "Dr. Evil" like heavily fortified compound. The plot was somewhere between preposterous and non existent. How many millionaires are willing to make a 25 million dollar bet on a car race? Answer: 4 but, didn't they become millionaires through fiscal responsibility? This was written for pubescent males, it plays like a video game. I did enjoy the Gulfstream II landing in the desert though.


This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.


We've been served - a terrible film.Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the "competitive world of step-dancing," I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.And, boy, have I just seen it.Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, ("A Touch of Pink"), "How She Move" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.I'll try to give a small synopsis of the "plot." First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. There are a few other guys in this "crew," including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in "Malcolm X." There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old "Flip Wilson Show." One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big "Step Monster" jam in Detroit.Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like "Rocky" with a really bad soundtrack, "Rudy" with annoying rap music in the background, "Cry Freedom" without the laughs. But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, "How she moves"?I was "moved" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.


Another one of those films you hear about from friends (...or read about on IMDb). Not many false notes in this one. I could see just about everything here actually happening to a young girl fleeing from a dead-end home town in Tennessee to Florida, with all her worldly possessions in an old beaten-up car.The heroine, Ruby, makes some false starts, but learns from them. I found myself wondering why, why didn't she lean a bit more on Mike's shoulder, but...she has her reasons, as it turns out.Just a fine film. The only thing I don't much like about it, I think, is the title.


I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.


Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.


The first "side-story" in the universal century Gundam universe presents a refreshing new look at the war between earth and the space colonies. The focus is no longer on a small group of individuals who would go on to play pivotal roles in the conflict, but on the everyday civilian population and how the war is seen through their eyes.The story does contain some Gundam staples, its premise being the attempts by a ZEON squad to capture an experimental Gundam, but it the execution of the plot that made this show so interesting to watch. This series focuses on the experiences of a young boy named Alfred and the relationship between his neighbor, Christina Mckenzie who is secretly a Federation pilot and a newbie Zeon pilot named Bernie Wiseman. Alfred develops a sort of "brotherly love" for Bernie while our young Zeon pilot also falls for Christina."War in the Pocket" proves that you do not need a sweeping epic tale about special individuals to make for a good war story. There are no uber ace pilots or large scale fleet battles to be seen here. This short 6 episode OVA focuses a lot more on character emotional drama over other themes like politics or philosophy and i love how realistically portrayed the characters are. Alfred is your typical everyday kid who plays violent computer games and thinks the armed forces is cool. He is then given a crash course in the horrible realities of war. The unlikely friendship and bonding between Bernie and Christina, each not knowing the fact that they are soldiers on different sides of the war, is played very real without going overboard with the romance drama stuff. Same goes for the endearing relationship between Alfred and Bernie. That being said, i would not want to spoil much of the story here, but it makes it a whole lot more heart wrenching to watch the tragedies that unfold as the show moves along all the way to its emotionally devastating twist ending. Despite its lack of action, this show never falls into the category of "boring". The characters are just that engaging enough to carry the whole show. Not to worry as there are a number of mobile suit action scenes scattered here and there. Each are beautifully animated on a level that surpasses that of an OVA and are sure to satisfy the craving for some "mandatory" mobile suit battles in a Gundam series.Normally watching anime in Japanese or English, i would leave up to personal preference. But in this case, i strongly recommend the English voice track over the Japanese one. Not only do the characters, whom all except Alfred are caucasian, sound more believable in English but the performances of the English voice cast are on par and even surpass the Japanese one, instilling each character with such realistic emotions and intonations that they sound just the acting in some live action TV dramas.In short, this show does not try to impress the audience. What it does is conveys numerous heartwarming themes that hit closest to home especially the death of innocence on the battlefield and the horrors of war through the eyes of a child. A truly moving little story that deserves more credit than it is being given.


Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying.


I cannot believe that the Indian film industry still puts out such third-rate dross as Waqt. For starters, the storyline is totally implausible  spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self-sufficiency. So what does he do? He promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (I honestly am not joking here). In the meantime, his dad is dying of lung cancer, but keeps it a secret from the son, but he survives long enough to see his son become famous, to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands.The acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess  no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. As usual for Indian films, the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world.To be honest, the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. The actors, such as Amitabh Bachchan and Akshay Kumar, will still be revered as Gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in Bollywood.


Before I see on this film, I see a lot of comments, which everyone has a great view of the film good or bad...What I really want to point out is the acting on Woody Harrelson behalf, he may not be in many parts of the film, but when he appears or even the intro, I was astonished by Will Smith's and Woody Harrelson "message" they tried to create and maybe slip the entire plot until the end to really understand what is going on.I am not a very sentimental person, I believe that a good deed should not have remorse or pity behind it. But a act to show redemption, there is not many films that in my point of view can show this. This is one of them that can.I agree with one person that commented about this film showing acts of "suicide" is a downfall, however I do not believe that is the "message" the film is trying to send, but "sacrifice". A bit to the extreme, but that is the message in MY opinion.This film has potential. The acting it is worth every penny, the script is unbelievable. from a person that doesn't really like watching drama films... if you like drama this is a must go watch.


NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.


This movie is a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.Not a must see movie...


Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory. However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear. 2.5/10 Bleah


I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.


I was talked into watching this movie by a friend who blubbered on about what a cute story this was.Yuck.I want my two hours back, as I could have done SO many more productive things with my time...like, for instance, twiddling my thumbs. I see nothing redeeming about this film at all, save for the eye-candy aspect of it...3/10 (and that's being generous)


I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil. The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie. Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks.


Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.


First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of "Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me..." is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives.


I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.


So this was an HBO "Made for TV Movie" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these "English speaking" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.


Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.


By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.


N.B.: Spoilers within. Assigning an artistic director to an operatic production naturally and inevitably means you are going to get a piece of that director's mind. But directing a Wagner opera is an especially tricky task, as he was perhaps the most explicit opera composer in terms of what things should look like and how they should unfold. Hans-Jurgen Syberberg loads this filming of "Parsifal," Wagner's final masterpiece, with enough extraneous ideas to cause it to nearly burst at the seams. You get more than a piece of the director: you get the whole fatted hog and then some. Syberberg is to be admired for his penchant for tearing back the covers on the uglier aspects of German history. But does it work to meld that desire to a Wagner opera already brimming with its own concepts? The scenes with the knights of the Holy Grail in Acts I and III are especially laden with visual allegory and symbolism. These are drawn come from Wagner's own time, from long before, and go well beyond. If you know what these things mean, they can enrich Syberberg's vision for you (but not necessarily enhance Wagner's vision); if you don't know what they mean, they're simply confusing, if not annoying. I won't bother uncoiling the plot of the opera here. Suffice it to say it is a typical Wagnerian synthesis of diverse elements, in this case a blending of the Holy Grail legend with the principles, practices, and pageantry of Christianity. The theme of redemption plays the main role here, as in nearly every Wagner opera.I personally had to sweat to get through Syberberg's first act (amidst my jarring acclimation, the music saved the day). But Act II picks up the pace. Here we meet Klingsor, the evil sorcerer, out to entrap the wandering "innocent fool" Parsifal. The greatest seductress of them all, Kundry, will be used to entice him to the dark side. After an initial dalliance with more symbols, these get stripped away, and the long, gorgeous, transformational duet between young fool and temptress really takes off. Finally the film starts working a genuine magic, and it is chiefly due to Syberberg's choosing to set things naturally and simply. Suddenly the acting starts to work (the expressive actress Edith Clever and the luscious soprano of Yvonne Minton team to create a wondrous Kundry); suddenly the music seems to come to life and make vivid the inner turmoil of the two characters. The camera work stays simple and quietly fluid. In other words, Wagner is allowed to tell his story more on his own terms. And it works beautifully. For me it was the most engrossing part of the film.With the re-entrance of the knights in part 2 of Act III, the weird extraneous symbolisms unfortunately creep back in. Some other loony Syberberg ideas: using a huge Wagner death-mask as a major set-piece (causing the composer's protuberant proboscis to loom comically large); dressing the Act III knights in all manner of costumes, wigs, and makeup (what is the director saying? That the knights are a bunch of buffoons? That they express multiple or timeless layers of significance beyond their surface functions? It's anybody's guess); the insertion  just after the incredibly touching baptism of Kundry by Parsifal  of rear-projection footage of the conductor rehearsing, in modern-day realism, his orchestra in the studio (this completely snapped my dramatic thread, requiring a few minutes to regroup); the complete avoidance of having any time pass between Acts II and III (when we meet the knight and "narrator" Gurnemanz again, he should be an old, old man, and Parsifal should re-emerge as a world-weary but wiser middle-aged man); but certainly the most bizarre stroke is to split the Parsifal character into male/female components. Some find this the most brilliant stroke. No doubt I can credit Karin Krick, who plays "Parsifal 2," with acting of strength and dignity (she also happens to be the best lip-syncher of the whole cast). But please...Wagner's conception of Parsifal is already so complex. His growth from a completely innocent boy who knows nothing of his past, to his breakthrough realization in Act II of what Amfortas's eternal wound means and how it has become his own, to his return as the great Redeemer of Act III  this is the journey of a masterfully constructed character. The bi-sexual emphasis is just gimmicky and absurd. (And what's with this nonsense about a homoerotic Gurnemanz and Parsifal?? Can't we just accept a mentor/apprentice relationship, which is marvelously reversed in Act III?) The Monte Carlo Philharmonic under Armin Jordan plays with passion and beauty (though the chorus is disappointing). But after watching this film I only wanted to whip out my Solti-led recording (HIGHLY recommended) and get my Wagnerian bearings straight again. The film experience for me ranged from bizarre to entertaining to infuriating. To Syberberg's credit, he's created a visually arresting work, and he certainly offers a unique take on an important opera. But instead of sticking to "Parsifal," he seems to have wanted to bring in all things Wagnerian: the man, the life, the enormous influence...all of it in crude symbolic code. "Parsifal" the opera is already full of weighty symbolism: the Grail, the Spear, the Holy Sacraments, baptism, Amfortas's ever-bleeding wound, Klingsor's self-castration, the Kiss, Kundry's Curse, and on and on. This is not to mention the *musical* symbolism sounding constantly in the score, in the form of Wagner's leitmotif system. "Parsifal" itself is one huge symbol! Getting back to my first-paragraph question, Syberberg's whole hog is all way too much for me. But if this project sounds like something to tickle your fancy, then go for it. I won't recommend just staying away from this; you may find yourself heartily satisfied. Or if you need something to crack your Wagner barrier, try it...but please, please, don't stop here. "Parsifal" is in a late, very ripe league of its own.


Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.


Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it.


Here again is yet another Diane Lane movie where she cheats on her husband. Is this the only role she knows how to play? This time it's set in 1969 and she cheats on her husband with the blouse man. I am so not surprised because that is so very predictable. Then her husband gets mad and throws the milk. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the milkman as well. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the ice cream man too because this is a very boring movie. Then after some milk throwing, she says sorry and sees the blouse man again. Duh. Then while she is making it with him, her son gets stung by wasps. My mom always told me not to throw rocks at a wasps nest. This kids mom didn't have time to tell him that, she was too busy with the blouse man.


In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.


Everyone in the cast, from Sugiyama to Aoki and Toyoko is someone we know in everyday life. They were so natural, and Sugiyama's transformation is incredibly believable. The score is so moving, it brought me to tears. The choreography was beautiful without seeming athletic. Mai's graceful dancing and charm gave me goosebumps. Tamako is such a wonderfully delightful character. You can almost see the charmed schoolgirl in her face as she reminisces about seeing "The King and I". Aoki's character is both hilarious and pitiful. Masako is so overwhelmingly natural as the bewildered wife, you almost want to hug her to reassure her that everything will be all right.This film is truly a keeper.


The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.


Thankfully as a student I have been able to watch "Diagnosis Murder" for a number of years now. It is basically about a doctor who solves murders with the help of his LAPD son, a young doctor and a pathologist. DM provided 8 seasons of exceptional entertainment. What made it different from the many other cop shows and worth watching many times over was its cast and quality of writing. The main cast gave good performances and Dick Van Dyke's entertainer roots shone through with the use of magic, dance and humor. The best aspects of DM was the fast pace, witty scripts and of course the toe tapping score. Sadly it has been unfairly compared to "Murder, She Wrote". DM is far superior boasting more difficult mysteries to solve and more variety. Now it is gone TV is a worse place. Gone are the days of feelgood, family friendly cop shows. Now there is just depressing 'gritty' ones.


With Harry Callahan getting up in years, the inevitable `old man with a chip on his shoulder' story had to come into play eventually. Callahan, looking fragile sometimes and out of place, his demeanor still was unwavering. Thankfully, this film took some time off to develop a different type of story, one that might reinvent the Dirty Harry and the whole genre. While the film fell short in doing so, it was still an excellent addition to the series, even if it was getting a little out of place during a time of silly fashion trends and New Wave music.


This film is really cool. every thing looks like it came out of the comic book. the sets, the costumes, and the plot is great. Clark Bartram is again our favorite batman. he looked a bit better in dead end, but he still pulls it off. superman is great too. the flying effects are OK. but its a fan-film so we cant expect them to be the greatest. the shot with superman catching the car was VERY believable. it was cool. This is a movie i would definitely see if it were real. its got every thing you would want in a batman/ superman movie. one exception though, i would cast the joker instead of 2-face..... overall i give this film a 10 because its a great film.


I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day "outside" and the night "inside" shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously.


This movie is a muddled mish-mash of clichés from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).*MILD SPOILERS*We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.*END SPOILERS*Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).


It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.


I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.


'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.


i am a big fan of karishma Kapoor and Govinda. I watched this film after i had seen Fiza, which was absolutley brilliant.There are films that are bad, and there are films that are cr*p. but this film just takes the biscuit.We were so annoyed that we were conned out of paying our money expecting a decent film.avoid at all cost, dont even rent it.1/10


This movie was charming. An accountant wants more from life than the approved conventional success. What makes it work so well, and makes it so different from the standard dance movie is that it really isn't about becoming "Great" it is simply about finding a way to express one's self. The big triumph at the end is not the winning of a contest, not the discovery of a whole new life style, but the simple joy of doing what you want to fulfill the other parts of your life. No one is discovering their passion, they are finding their quiet soul.The Japanese background makes the subtle oppression and "secret life" of ballroom dancing both understandable and personal. We can all see ourselves in the everyman.


Dig! I would say to anyone even if you don't like Metallica to see 'some kind of monster' it is a spinal tap type documentary about one of the biggest bands in the world acting like mental kids during a breakdown of sorts. It's fun and fascinating. Along the same lines comes dig! A film about 'the Dandy Warhol's' and 'the Brian Jonestown massacre' two Portland bands who start off a kind of music scene in there home town only for one of the bands to become huge and one to fall by the wayside into the musical history books. Right from the start the two bands pull in opposite directions just on their ability to make decisions whether good or bad. Filmed over seven years and at times painful to watch we see the dandy's meteoric rise to fame (thanks to that vodaphone ad!) and the Jonestown seminal fall from scene instigators to bickering wannabes. As the bands become more disjointed the friendships are stretched tension tight and at several points snap into arguments and even on stage fights. All of this is half funny and half tragic and believe it or not is perversely watch able. Like I said at the beginning you can watch the Metallica film even if you have no interest in the band. Dig! on the other hand is slightly different and is more enjoyable and a whole lot easier to watch if you have a passing interest in either band. Still a good film and more a testament to not be in a band than encouraging that as a career path. Dig! Is a mad ride on rock and roll's coat tails and a fine example of the pitfalls and pleasures of being or wanting to be famous.


The original with Barbara Stanwyk is saved only by Stanwyk's performance. The story and the other performances are too sickeningly sweet and the film itself is too dated to be really enjoyed today. Bette Midler's version is much more interesting. She is Stella Claire, an independent, free-spirited single woman who gets pregnant and refuses help from her boyfriend (Stephen Collins) or her friend (John Goodman in an underrated performance). She raises her daughter Jenny played so sweetly by Trini Alvarado and then comes to the conclusion that Jenny's father can do better for her and ultimately makes a life-altering decision. Through out the film, there are plenty of laughs, tears and memorable moments mostly between Midler and Alvarado. Marsha Mason co-stars as Jenny's would-be stepmother, who though wealthy turns out to be a very good influence on her. If you like Midler, Goodman or just good films with plenty of emotion you'll enjoy Bette Midler's version of STELLA.


I remember watching this is its original airing in 1962 as a five or six year old and REALLY enjoying this. I recently had the opportunity to watch it again, for the first time since then, as it was aired on "Walt Disney Presents" on the Disney Channel. I'd forgotten most of it, and some of it was geared towards kids, but it was still enjoyable. I can't wait to show it to my niece and nephews.


Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.JLH


It's easy to forget, once later series had developed the alien conspiracy plot arc more, that once upon a time, The X-Files' wrote episodes like "GenderBender" and "Fearful Symmetry", where the aliens weren't all little grey men or mind-control goop, but could actually surprise you."Fearful Symmetry" starts with an "invisible elephant" - actually an elephant somehow dislocated in space and time, not a mile away from "The Walk" - and ends with a pregnant gorilla being abducted. And it's very much an episode of wonderful moments. The subplot is annoyingly worthy - yeah, we get it, zoos are bad except when they're not - but the ideas that within it are fascinating, visually powerful, and very memorable, and it covers an angle on abduction that is largely overlooked - why *would* humans be the only things that aliens are interested in?In the end, it wasn't an instant classic, but it was enjoyable viewing while it lasted, again, very memorable, and mainly, it's something that you couldn't imagine many other shows doing.