This is the best made-for-TV movie of all-time! Am I saying this because I'm a huge Silverstone fan? Partially, but even without her, I'd still see it. I'm a fan of serial killer genre films, and believe this to be a great entry in that category. Also, Mary Giordano easily ranks among Alicia's top five character creations. Totally memorable - like she really exists. I'd have her on my side, too, if there was a mystery to be solved. She plays the character, like she does with her real life, with complete confidence in everything she does. Seems sweet, honest, nice...just like she is in real life. So is that acting? Yes, indeed, she's sort of a rebel once again. This time she's not bad, she's too good and a bit afraid to do things that seem above the law. But she doesn't do things the normal teenager would do. Instead, she spends her time reading detective mags and solves crimes. A cliche abounds: she's sort of avenging her father's death, in a different way than vigilante-style. At the time, Alicia seemed to be playing the same characters: rebellious, seductive, without a parent, a loner. This happens here, too, but she's a bit nerdy this time around. That doesn't matter; she's still cool as a nerd. Check this out soon, or else Giordano will be investigating why you haven't...


This movie is unworthy of the Omen title. It is so bad that it has actually damaged the classic nature of the first three. It never should have been made, they ought to change the title.They don't even spell Damien Thorn's NAME correctly!!!! And there are no daggers, the most important element of all the Omen films. Pull it from the shelves and burn it.


I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact.


I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! And John Woo surprised me here by producing a highly entertaining kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing is possible! This is good stuff.Many of the fight scenes are very good (and some of them are less good), and the main characters are amusing and likable. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, but entertaining none the less. You gotta see the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's hysterical!Upon repeated viewings, however, Last Hurrah For Chivalry can tend to get a little boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 7 out of 10. But it really is almost an "8".All in all one of the better kung fu movies, made smack-dab in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair).


This movie could be used in film classes in a "How Not to Script a B-Movie" course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.The "story" of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a "faggot" for drawing birds instead of "monsters and cowboys." If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): "Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass"Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level.


Many mystery stories follow the standard whodunit path: murder most foul, gathering of clues, gaggle of possible perps, sprinkling of red herrings, and inevitable showdown between clever evildoer and even more clever crime solver."Forgotten" abandons the well-trod and gives us complex characters who may or may not have committed terrible acts. The fact that at the end of three episodes we have no easy answers and no neatly-tied package might frustrate some, but for me it was the indication of an intelligently crafted tale which probes, disturbs, and haunts with the question: What does an evil person look like?Excellent acting and production combine to make a mystery not easily... forgotten.


Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at "The Wedding".This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the "American Pie Presents" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.2/10


That's right. A movie written, directed and produced by Fred Tepper and family. (Fred should have known better, having worked the sets of 'Titantic' and 'Dogma'.) So, the plot. There are some scientists, and some forest rangers, and a hot chick with huge fake breasts. They are all really bad at their jobs, including the hot chick(who I think is supposed to be a photographer, but who cares because she wears a bikini). One of the forest rangers comments that the scientists are "professional people," which is good, because it would be horrible if they were professional grubs or jellybeans or Ewoks.They are hiking through the woods in search of some strange ape-like bones, and no one even once mentions that the bones just might be those of the infamous Bigfoot. They just wander around and one of the rangers unabashedly hits on the hottie. We all hope he dies real soon (along with his sister who's meant to be the cute naive one, but is really just annoying). Then they, *gasp*, find a Sasqu... I mean, Ape-like Animal Burial Ground. Of course, no mentions that it might just be Bigfoot bones they're messing with... I guess scientists and forest rangers just don't think about those types of things.Then Sasquatch and his tribe get really angry and kill all the people we dislike, chases the other losers away and buries his Great Aunt Muriel and Cousin Josh (who died in an unfortunate trout accident) all over again.Insipid, boring dialogue (I zoned out several times), inane plot, unlikable characters, bad CGI (a man in a monkey suit would look better), and acting that just wasn't very good all add up to make a movie I won't be watching again.You check it out though; it's good for some unintentional laughs.


This was a great movie but it had the worst ending I think I have ever seen!!! The actors were great and displayed wonderful talent. The entire story was twisted and unexpecting, which, is what made it entertaining. As good as the movie was, the entire film is judged by the ending, which was terrible! Maybe a sequel could eliminate this bad ending.


The first word which comes into my mind after watching this movie is "beauty". Beauty is all around, in actors' play (Andie is superb as always), in well designed shots, and in authors' red line idea - the Love.I think the Kenny's character is the only white spot in these three womens' otherwise boring and predictable life. His interaction makes Andie's character living as entertaining as it could possibly be. When he's gone, it became obvious that we cannot really appreciate and hold to our inner believes and sacred desires.The fact that Andie successfully recovers from this loss is nothing bad, instead it shows that life prevails in any forms, even in this small British village, which is shown perfectly.Another reason I love this movie is that it is so British in all ways - all that houses and "fags" and accents :))). And Andie again is doing superb job! It is a shame that this movie got such low marks. 10 out of ten!


During the opening night of the Vanties a woman is found dead on the catwalk above the stage. As the show continues the police attempt to piece together who killed who and why before the final curtain.I had always heard that this was a great classic comedy mystery so I was excited to find myself a copy. Unfortunately no one told me about the musical numbers which go on and on and on. While the numbers certainly are the type that Hollywood did in their glory days, they become intrusive because they pretty much stop the movie dead despite attempts to weave action around them. This wouldn't be so bad if the music was half way decent, but its not. There is only one good song. Worse its as if the studio knew they had one song, Cocktails for Two, and we're forced to endure four versions of it: a duet, a big production number, as the Vanities finale and in the background as incidental music. I don't think Spike Jones and His City Slickers ever played it that much. The rest of the movie is pretty good with Victor McLaglen sparring nicely with Jack Oakie. Charles Middleton is very funny is his scenes as an actor in love with the wardrobe mistress.By no mean essential I can recommend this if you think you can get through the musical numbers, or are willing to scan through them. Its a fun movie of the sort they don't make any more.


Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period." Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.


My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).


I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy.


Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.


People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.


"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch. "Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side. "Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget. However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt. However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun. That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.


This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the "go-getter" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.


This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.


Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!?


War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-


That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.


Intense actors like Bruce Dern, Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward combine to make this modern-day film noir a winner. Of the three, I don't know who was most interesting as all offer good performances and intriguing characters.Patric does the narration in this noir, playing an ex-boxer and mental patient. Wow, that alone makes for an interesting guy! He looks dumb, but he isn't. Ward is the slinky, attractive, cynical, intelligent and compassionate co- conspirator of a kidnapping plan that goes bad. Bruce Dern also is in the mix and Dern never fails to fascinate in about any film.The movie could be considered kind of downer to the average viewer, but I found it fascinating....and I don't like depressing movies normally. What I found was a kind of quirky crime film. Take a look and see if you agree. This is pretty unknown film that shouldn't have that status because it's simply a good story and well-done.


The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10.


I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.


I've been a fan of Xu Ke (Hark Tsui) for many year since school. This film is the best fantasy movie in years. I dont think "action" is the right genre, though there're lot of action and KongFu scenese. Wait, did I mentioned this is an ORIENTAL fantasy moive? please, keep in mind that DO NOT use hollywood formula to rate this film. And for the guy who "poo" around, I don't blame you, 'cause you still young and need to know more about "culture".


hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one


Phantasm ....Class. Phantasm II.....awesome. Phantasm III.....erm.....terrible.Even though i would love to stick up for this film, i quite simply can't. The movie seems to have "sold out". First bad signs come when the video has trailers for other films at the start (something the others did not). Also too many pointless characters, prime examples the kid (who is a crack shot, funny initially but soon you want him dead), the woman who uses karate to fight off the balls (erm not gonna work, or rather shouldn't) and the blooming zombies (what the hell are they doing there, there no link to them in the other Phatasms). Also there is a severe lack of midgets running about.The only good bits are the cracking start and, of course, Reggie B.(Possible SPOILER coming Up)To me this film seems like a filler between II and IV as extra characters just leave at the end so can continue with main 4 in IV.Overall very, VERY disappointing. 3 / 10


As is often the case, films about self-loathing characters do not usually make for good drama. 'Downloading Nancy' is no exception. It's supposedly based on a true story about a woman who's murdered at her own request by someone she meets over the internet.The protagonist is Nancy (Maria Bello) who is married to Albert (Rufus Sewell). Albert is a successful software developer who has developed a golf game which his company has successfully marketed to various bars and bar/restaurants. Unlike most human beings, Albert has virtually no positive attributes (except for his ability to be successful in the business world). Throughout the film, Albert has a grim and dour expression on his face. He has no sympathy for his wife with all her emotional problems and resorts to patronizing prostitutes. When his wife asks for sex, he punishes her by masturbating in her presence instead.Nancy is equally one-note as a character. Not only has she had a loveless 15 year marriage but was sexually abused by her uncle when she was growing up (thankfully there are no flashbacks of that back story in the film). Her self-loathing takes the form of self-mutilation and a result, she's forced into therapy. However, she has such contempt for her therapist that no progress can be made.Finally, Nancy is so depressed that she contacts Louis over the internet. He's sort of a sadomasochistic gigolo, who has sex with women for money while inflicting massive amounts of pain to boot. It's revealed that Louis has two children but no longer sees them (the children's mother no longer wants anything to do with him).Nancy's plan is to first have painful sex with Louis and then have him kill her. There's a particularly unpleasant scene where Louis has sex with Nancy while slashing her vaginal area with a broken piece of glass. These scenes are shown as flashbacks after Louis pays a visit to Albert who ties him up and strikes him with a golf club. It seems that Louis has a two-fold plan in going to see Albert: 1) berate him for his treatment of Nancy and 2) enjoy the beating he receives. It takes awhile before Louis will reveal Nancy's fatefirst, he forces Albert to do him the favor of taking his dog to a relative so someone will care for it in the future. Nancy's fate of course is that Louis finally ended up choking her to death (but showed some hesitation first as he made it clear that he had some 'feelings' for her). We soon learn that Louis is imprisoned for life for Nancy's murder.What exactly are we to take away from a film such as Downloading Nancy? Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence? Is that the main point of the film? Is sympathy for Nancy actually warranted? I don't think so. The film's writers create a straw man in the character of Albertsomeone who is so cut off from his emotions that he is the one that is held responsible for Nancy's decline. But are people so one-dimensional in real life? I think not. They have the repulsive Louis, a man who makes a living by inflicting pain, come over and berate Albert for neglecting Nancy. Furthermore, his expressions of love towards Nancy (before he kills her), is supposed to show his 'sensitive side'.In the end, it matters little whether the filmmakers have defined where their sympathies lie with the various characters in the film. They are so bent on titillating their audience with scenes of gratuitous violence, that Downloading Nancy becomes nothing more than an exercise in poor taste and soft pornography.


Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.


I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10.


After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral.


It has been almost 5 years since the release of this stylish action flick.I have watched this movie almost 10 times and it a great effort by Gautham.From my perspective,I feel this movie is virtually flawless. Surya as ACP Anbuchelvan-no doubt..classy.Jyothika played her role as Maya very well.The character suits her very well.The character that caught movie-goers attention was Pandia.Jeevan played the role of Pandia very well.Brutal and fearsome.Jeevan deservedly received the Best Villain award in the ITFA 2004.The supporting cast of Daniel Balaji,Devadharshini and other performed well.Racy screenplay,perfectly-timed dialogues and brilliant narration by Gautham.The soundtrack by Harris Jeyaraj are all chart-busters while the BGM suits the movie very well.Cinematography by R.D. Rajasekhar is rich.Peter Hein choreographed the stunts well.Anthony's editing is precise.Above all,Kaakha Kaakha is a perfect cop film filled with right doses of action and romance.Even some Hollywood film cant compete with Kaakha Kaakha...undoubtedly.


Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.


It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).


I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation


Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...


What a let down! This started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. Admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail, but I was nevertheless gripped and kept watching.David Morrissey is always good value and he Suranne Jones were good leads. The Muslim aspects were very interesting. We were tantalised with possible terrorist connections.But then Morrissey's character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. The last episode was dull, dull, dull. The whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble.Five hours of my life for that? My advice: watch paint dry instead.


No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly. 1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process. 2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it.


This movie was terrible. The plot sucked, the acting was bad, the editing was inept and this movie makes me want to poke my eyes out. I wish I had the time I spent watching this movie back. The balloon scene was stupid, the Mormon jokes are really old, the soundtrack sucked, I saw no chemistry between the two leads, it's full of stereotypes, stupid local "celeb" cameo's..most noted was Del "I'm going to drive as fast as I want to.." computer idiot. What is worst is that these actors had to play themselves on the spiritual side and even they screwed that up. This movie help create a long line of lackluster efforts to mainstream LDS beliefs into Hollywood. I.E. The RM, Church ball, etc. etc. I would forgo watching this movie and instead run head first into a brick wall. You will be more entertained than watching this poor excuse for a show.


I thought that this film was very enjoyable. I watched this film with my wife BEFORE I had my first child. Therefore, I was not watching it as simply family entertainment and I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems as though many of the reviews are pointing out that this movie is not earth shattering, there were no unexpected plot changes and that the movie was predictable and boring. If these people were watching this movie expecting to have a religious experience doing so, then they were obviously going to be disappointed. This is simply an animated movie; nothing more. If you want to see this movie simply to sit back and let yourself be entertained, you will not be disappointed. In closing, this is definitely not the best movie Disney has made, but it IS entertaining and I do not understand the bad reputation it has received.


If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".Yes it could.I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.


For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.


A DOUBLE LIFE has developed a mystique among film fans for two reasons: the plot idea of an actor getting so wrapped up into a role (here Othello) as to pick up the great flaw of that character and put it into his life; and that this is the film that won Ronald Colman the Academy Award (as well as the Golden Globe) as best actor. Let's take the second point first.Is Anthony John Colman's greatest role, or even his signature role? I have my doubts on either level - but it is among his best known roles. Most of his career, Ronald Colman played decent gentlemen, frequently in dangerous or atypical situations. He is Bulldog Drummond (cleaned up in the Goldwyn production not to be an arrogant racist) fighting crime. He is Raffles, the great cricket player and even greater burglar, trying to pull off his best burglary to save a friend's honor. He is Robert Conway, the great imperial political figure, who is kidnapped and brought to that paradise on earth, Shangri-La. He is Dick Heldar, manfully going to his death after he learns his masterpiece has been destroyed and knowing he is now blind and useless as an artist. I can add Sidney Carton and Rudolf Rassendyll to this list. But here he is not heroic. In fact he is unconsciously villainous - he murders one person and nearly kills two others. It does not matter that he is obviously mentally ill - his behavior here is anti-social.To me Colman should have gotten the Oscar for Heldar, or Carton, or Conway - all more typical of his acting roles. But the Academy has a long tradition of picking atypical roles for awarding it's treasure to it's leading members. Colman's Anthony John is a very good performance, and at one point truly scary. When alone with Signe Hasso in her home, she at the top of a staircase and him at the base, they have an argument. She demands that "Tony" leave, saying she won't see him. He stares at her, his face oddly hardening in a way he never used before, and he says, "Oh, no you won't!" He starts moving upstairs, frightening Hasso, and she runs into her room. He stops himself and leaves. It actually is the real highpoint of his performance - even more than his assaulting of Hasso on stage, or of Edmond O'Brien, or his killing of Shelley Winters. It showed his blind fury. For that moment it was (to me) an Oscar-worthy performance. But it is only that moment. I'm glad he was recognized for the role, but he should have gotten the award for a more consistent performance.His actual performance in the Shakespearian role of Othello is not great, but bearable. Too frequently he lets the dialog roll off his tongue in a kind of forced singing style (one wonders if that was due to the coaching of Walter Hampden, who probably knew how to handle the role properly, or a reaction to it). Nowadays "Othello" is played by an African American actor more frequently than a white one. Paul Robeson's brilliant performance in the role set that new tradition firmly into place. But the three best known movie performances of the part are those of Colman, Orson Welles in his movie of OTHELLO, and Laurence Olivier in his movie of his play production of OTHELLO. All three white actors did the role in black face. My personal favorite of the three is Welles, who seems the most subtle. But even watching Welles' fine film version makes me angry that Robeson never got to put his performance (with Jose Ferrer as Iago) on film.Now the first question - can an actor get that wrapped up in a role? I heard different things about this. Some actors have admitted taking a role home with them from the theater or movie set. Others have found a role they have to be stimulating, influencing them on a new cause of action regarding their lives or some aspect of life. But actually I have never heard of anyone who turned homicidal as the result of a role. It seems a melodramatic, hackneyed idea.As a matter of fact it was not a new idea in 1947 with Cukor, Kanin, and Gordon. In 1944 a "B" feature, THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER, starring John Loder, had used a similar plot about an actor who is playing an infamous "Jack the Ripper" type, and who starts committing those type of killings after an accident affects his mind. There was an earlier movie in the 1930s, in which an actor playing Othello gets jealous of his wife (I think the title was MEN ARE NOT GODS, but I'm not sure). But due to Colman's name and career, and Cukor's directing, it is A DOUBLE LIFE that people think of when they recall this plot idea. It even reached comedy (finally) on an episode of CHEERS, where Diane Chambers is helping an ex-convict who may have acting talent, and they put on OTHELLO at the bar, just after he sees her with Sam Malone kissing. Only Diane is aware of the personality problem of the ex-convict, and can't delay the production long enough (she tries to start a discussion into the history and symbolism of the play). The cast of A DOUBLE LIFE was first rate, and Cukor's direction was as sure as ever. So the film is definitely worth watching. But despite giving Colman an interestingly different role, it was not his best work on the screen.


Heartland was in production about the same time as Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate - Heartland cost a fraction to make but is 10 times the piece of film.Heaven's Gate was "the biggest and most expensive ($40 mil in 1980!) Hollywood flops of all time, its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM" -imdb entry Heartland cost a few hundred thousand dollars and benefits from great writing, direction, photography and acting. It easily draws you into the beauty, joys, hardships and sorrow of pioneer life.It's sad that Hollywood sometimes would pour millions into turkeys (based on a director's single big hit) and neglect such a wonderful story.


this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, everand before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not thereediting-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!


I fell in love with this silent action drama. Kurt Russell and only Kurt Russell could have played this so well. Raised from childhood to know nothing but war and fighting, Todd (Kurt Russell) is dumped on a planet after being made obsolete by genetically engineered soldiers.The stage is set and another classic icon of action movies was born - SOLDIER. Not Rambo, not Schwarzenegger, not Bruce Willis, not Mel Gibson, not Jason Statham - Kurt Russell owns this role and made it entirely his - original, daring, and all too human. I miss the fact that sequels were never made.10/10-LD_________my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/


I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.Bluto


Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.


I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said "we have to go see this movie"...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!


If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.


Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life.


Currently on METOO's new schedule at 4 pm on weekdays, right after "Maverick" and right before "Wild, Wild West" (followed by "Star Trek").Don't know if I ever actually saw an episode of it when it was originally on, but I'm really captivated by it. Offbeat, unusual, surreal stories set in a mythical West. Kind of the "Naked City" of Westerns.And the guest stars are there: Dan Duryea, Lyle Bettger, Brian Donlevy, MacDonald Carey, Rick Jason (as a treacherous Mexican), a young Dick Van Patten, Jack Lord, Noah Berry, Jr. (as a colorful Mexican), Martha Hyer, Marguerite Chapman, even Ann Robinson ("War of the Worlds"), Gloria Talbott ("I Married a Monster from Outer Space")It ran for EIGHT SEASONS, over 200 episodes, from January, 1959, to December, 1965.Eric Fleming is quite remarkable as trail boss Gil Favor, the most stolid man that's ever lived, with the code of honor of a Samurai, and just the right balance between toughness and open-handedness. I would vote for him for President any day. (P.S. He had a very interesting biography: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281661/ )And a young Clint Eastwood is quite striking as his impulsive right hand, "Rowdy" Yates. Also, veteran Western actor and country music figure (the immortal "One-eyed, One-horned, Flying Purple People Eater") Sheb Wooley is there as seasoned scout Pete Nolan. And Paul Brinegar makes the most cantankerous character of a cook you could ask for as "Wishbone".And then there's that great theme song, performed by the immortal Frankie Laine. (Between that and the "Maverick" theme, I've got Western theme songs running through my head all day.)I look forward to every episode; I'm collecting the whole set. A good time (not to mention a moo-ving experience) is always guaranteed, as one waits to see if the boys will get their difficulties straightened out before the commercial."Rollin', rollin', rollin' . . . "


I really like Miikes movies about Yakuza, this one I saw about 2 years ago and it really fu**ed my head. Never before seen such a sick and twisted thing. The Story is good and the actors do their thing very well. I haven't seen the UK or Japan version, but I have to say that I believe that the German DVD is a bit censored. If you haven't seen the movie already and live in Germany maybe you better look out for a DVD from the Nederlands or Austria. The I-ON DVD contains a lot of very hard and nasty scenes, but at the showdown I felt that something was missing, about one or two very short scenes.All in all a good perverted movie with crazy characters and a high level of violence, that's what I like Miike for!!


I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season.


I think this movie is a very funny film and one of the best 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very catchy spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very good ending in is very funny (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a pretty cool dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, but that is what makes the film funny, it is a comedy, loosen up!! I love the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because it is interesting to see how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, and with this films, it is hard to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) or the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, but this film carries it off successfully. The two garbage men are so funny, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is a must for your collection and is one of the best, most entertaining, funniest, best storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!!


What can i say, i have grown up watching Hum Saath Saath Hain, Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Maine Pyar Kiya. Soraj have always been different. Movies are part of our lives in evolutionary times Soraj creates something thats hard to find. Love and joint family that loving and great. Vivah is journey for a couple that are getting arrange marriage that turns on arrange and love marriage. Shahid has done fine work. Anupamji as always brilliant. Amrita Rao quit different even though I felt that someway the other to me she doesn't suit in that role. We've seen her in Ishk Vishk and Ab ke baras, and Main ho on Na. So quit different role that she isn't in to. She is been excellent in Main ho on Na and ishk vishk but may be she could've put little more in the role. Anyways great going work by Barjatya. This movie rejuvenates the values that we forgot. Sweet film of the year. Great music and lyrics. I am not sure if its a remake but anyways brilliant story that is original. Soraj's movies have been brilliant all the way so we always expect something different from him. Great work by all the cast the crew and everybody. Lovely family film to enjoy with your parents, siblings, friends and love ones. I give it 10 out of 10.


Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.4/10


The concept of this made-for-TV horror movie is ludicrous beyond words, but hey, it was the late 1970's and literally all stupid horror formats were pretty damn profitable, so why not exploit the idea of a satanically possessed dog? The plot of "Devil Dog" is easy to describe to fans of the horror genre: simply think of "The Omen" and replace the newborn baby boy with a nest of German Shepard pups! Seriously, I'm not kidding, that's what the movie is about! During the opening sequence, members of some kind of satanic cult buy a female dog in heat only to have it impregnated by Satan himself. You'd think that the Lord of Darkness has other things on His mind than to fornicate with a German Shepard and take over the world one evil puppy at the time, but apparently not. Exactly like little Damien in "The Omen", one of the puppies is taken in by model family and grows up to become a beautiful and charismatic animal. But Lucky  that's the dog's name  is pure evil and liquidates annoying neighbors and nosy school teachers in derivative and tamely executed ways. He also inflicts his malignant character on the family wife and children, but he cannot force the father (Richard Crenna) to stick his arm into a lawnmower because he's a "chosen one". The whole thing becomes too moronic for words when Crenna eventually travels to Ecuador to search for an ancient wall painting and gets advice from an old witchdoctor who speaks perfect English. I guess he learned that living in isolation atop of a mountain his entire life. Director Curtis Harrington ("What's the matter with Helen", "Ruby") and lead actor Richard Crenna ("Wait until Dark", "The Evil") desperately try to create a suspenseful and mysterious atmosphere, but all is in vain. Scenes like cute puppy eyes spontaneously setting fire to a Spanish maid or a dog dodging bullets without even moving evoke chuckles instead of frights, and not even spooky musical tunes can chance that. The "special" effects are pathetic, especially near the end when the Satan-dog mutates into an utterly cheesy shadow on the wall. "Devil Dog" is a truly dumb movie, but it's definitely hilarious to watch late at night with some friends and loads of liquor. There are entertaining brief cameos of Martine Beswick ("Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde") as the terrifying cult queen and R.G. Armstrong ("The Car", "The Pack") as the evil fruit, vegetable and puppy salesman. And, yes, that annoying daughter is the same kid who gets blown away complaining about her ice-cream in Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13".


I really can't say too much more about the plot of the movie that hasn't already been said. I haven't seen the movie in about 25 years and the memory of it has never left me. I have been searching for it every where. I have done net searches for it in the past but came up empty. Last night I was thinking about the movie again and was trying to remember who was in it but I was only about 10 or 12 when I last saw it and I wasn't even sure if I had the right movie name so I decided to do another search and I finally found this sight. I was right. If any one knows where I can get a copy of this wonderful movie to share with my family could you please let me now at tawnyteel@yahoo.com I would really appreciate it. And to anyone who has not seen this movie and has the chance to it is well worth it.


Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.) OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick "P*nis or bed?" when she told him she'd "get him a new one" after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman.


oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.hero: ok.evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.insert sequence in which this occurs.evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.woman: where is my daughter?hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.


Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.


For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid.


This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about "blood surfing". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!!


this short film trailer is basically about Superman and Batman working together and forming an uneasy alliance.obviously,the two characters have vastly differing views on how to deal with crime and what constitutes punishment.it's a lot of fun to see these two iconic characters try to get along.i won't go int to the storyline here.but i will get into the acting,which is terrific.everyone is well cast.the two actors playing Superman and Batman are well suited to their characters.the same filmmakers that made Batman: Dead End and Grayson also made this short film.of the three,i probably liked this one the least,but i still thought it was well done.for me,World's finest is a 7/10


May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting./hjm


This movie is one of those "WOW!" movies. Not because it's the greatest movie of all time, but because it surprised me. Not only was it a T.V. movie, but it was on Elvis. I can safely say as many impersonators as there are there was only one Elvis, but I can also safely say that Kurt Russel came extremely close to being the real thing. It was one of the greatest impersonations that I have ever seen. He had me believing that it was really him. I learned a lot about Elvis' life from watching this movie. And don't led the television part of it let you stray-it's actually a really fantastic film! And Kurt Russel could've been Elvis' twin :)


Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon.


Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.I highly recommend it.


I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.


How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.


I went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.As a film it was painful, but seeing Bret Carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle.My favorite part of the movie was seeing BC slammed in the face with what appeared to be a "C" battery. The jury is still out on this. It was from a dildo and it was in slow-mo. Yep."Shoot the left side of the face only...people become famous by demanding things!" - Bret Carr B. Carr donned a Chicken Suit for a bit of reverse psychology, roaming the streets of Clifton bashing his own film. He should. This is correct to bash the film.My soul felt chafed after this movie.Bret Carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.-Anonymous


I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages.


I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!


Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it.


I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.


Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.


Christopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares.


I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.