A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.


This is obviously aimed at the same market as Monsters Inc and Shrek, but is different in its less cartoony feel (despite the deliberately cartoony characteristics of the lead creatures). The story is not one that had a massive in your face moral at the end (its more like its tugging at your shirt sleeves) but chooses just to tell a story about relationships between different "animals." You know the outcome, but you can't help being drawn in. The characters themselves are far more than their voices (the advantage of less famous actors doing the voices), unlike most Disney movies. They are well rounded and completely believable, strangely. The group dynamics are brilliantly well presented and the character revelations and quirks are subtle and enjoyable. You will find yourself rooting for them far sooner than you would like to think. The animation is brilliant, as you would expect, and you will be praying for the opportunity to go on the ice slide in the movie. You will fall in love with the characters, especially the comic relief of the prehistoric squirrel and its desperate attempts to bury its nuts. I came out wanting the obligatory merchandise, especially the sloth toy, only to be disappointed the next day when I couldn't find anything vaguely related.Which, strangely, makes the movie all the more pure. Better than Monsters Inc or Shrek.


Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains.....


Personally, I think Sayonara was the greatest movie he ever made. It touched every emotion from anger to romance to complete tragedy. And Brando should have won for best actor. Anyway, the movie is awesome, the man is attractive to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and now you have no reason not to see it! Do so, and fall in love.


It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.


It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious "thing" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the "what the hell?" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.I'm in the latter group.


Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****


one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time.


I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!


Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra"/"Castle of Blood" is an eerie,atmospheric chiller that succeeds on all fronts.It looks absolutely beautiful in black & white and it has wonderfully creepy Gothic vibe.Alan Foster is an English journalist who pursues an interview with visiting American horror writer Edgar Allan Poe.Poe bets Foster that he can't spend one night in the abandoned mansion of Poe's friend,Thomas Blackwood.Accepting the wager,Foster is locked in the mansion and the horror begins!The film is extremely atmospheric and it scared the hell out of me.The crypt sequence is really eerie and the tension is almost unbearable.Barbara Steele looks incredibly beautiful as sinister specter Elisabeth Blackwood."Castle of Blood" is easily one of the best Italian horror movies made in early 60's.A masterpiece!


We're a long way from LAURA. Once again Otto Preminger directs, Dana Andrews stars as a police detective named Mark, and Gene Tierney is the beautiful woman who haunts him, but nothing else about WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS resembles everyone's favorite sophisticated murder mystery. Instead of deliciously quotable dialogue we get gritty, harrowing realism. While the earlier film took place in the ritzy upper echelons of New York society, here we're in the low-rent district of dark streets, hoodlums, cheap restaurants and crummy flats. Tierney, gorgeous as ever, now works as a department-store mannequin and lives in Washington Heights (the neighborhood of the "doll" who once got a fox fur out of LAURA's Mark McPherson). This time Andrews is Mark Dixon, an older, sadder, more troubled version of the cool cop in a trench coat. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS belongs to a sub-genre of noir, movies about police brutality focusing on cops who can't control their violent impulses. Like Kirk Douglas's character in DETECTIVE STORY, Dixon owes his seething contempt for crooks to his father's criminal past. Where Douglas is self-righteous and blind to his own faults, Andrews is burdened by repressed guilt and self-loathing. He accidentally kills a suspect and covers up his actions with an attempt to throw suspicion on a slimy gangster (Gary Merrill) whom he has been vainly pursuing for years. Instead, a kindly cab driver is suspected because he's the father of the dead man's estranged and mistreated wife Morgan (Gene Tierney). Dixon, falling in love with the wife of the man he killed, tries desperately to save her father without giving himself away. Among noir protagonists, Dana Andrews had this distinction: he was incapable of appearing unintelligent. Even when playing an average Joe, as he usually did, he always comes across as unusually sensitive and perceptive; more than that, his air of being too thoughtful for his own comfort gives him that haunted--and haunting--quality that was his essence as an actor. He played ordinary guys, cops and soldiers, but always with a tragic undercurrent of seeing and knowing too much. His conscientious heroes are marked by exhaustion, guilt, the inability ever to "lighten up." No other actor could have expressed so well the bottled-up anger, the slow-burning pain, the agonized intelligence of Mark Dixon. He also has a muted tenderness, a muffled warmth and even wry humor that make him heartbreaking. This comes out when he takes Morgan to a restaurant where he's a regular, and for the first time we see this cold, brutal man trading mock insults with the waitress, whose sarcasm can't hide her affection and concern for him. When Dixon asks his partner for money to get a lawyer for Morgan's father, he supplies it even though they recently argued and Dixon threw a punch at him. There are no words about loyalty or knowing he's a good guy deep down, but we see it all in the man's anguished silence and his wife's resignation as she hands over some jewelry to pawn. Dixon's goodness comes across through other people's reactions to him as much as through Andrews's deeply moving performance. Though Dana Andrews was a minor star, he may be the quintessential forties man. He goes through some movies hardly ever taking off his overcoat; with that boxy, mid-century silhouette, further fortified by the fedora, the glass of bourbon, the cigarette he doesn't take out of his mouth when he talks, he looks imprisoned in the masculine ideal of toughness and impassivity. While many noirs romanticize the two-fisted tough guy, WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS offers an unflinching portrait of the reality behind the façade, a gripping and melancholy exploration of the roots and consequences of violence.Andrews was sadly underrated in his own time (he was the only one of the three protagonists in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES not nominated for an Academy Award, though his low-key performance is far more compelling than Frederic March's hammy, Oscar-winning drunk). Fortunately, Andrews appeared in some films that ensured his immortality, and now at last this little-known film, which contains his best performance, can be seen as part of the marvelous Fox Film Noir set. This series, including a number of never before released titles (such as NIGHTMARE ALLEY and THIEVES' HIGHWAY), suggests that Twentieth-Century-Fox may have had the finest record of all the major studios when it came to film noir.


I disagree with Anyone who done't like this movie. I used to LOVE this movie when I was little and I still do. It's sweet, funny and warms your heart. And It proves that love and friendship can never be destroyed. And even though it didn't have much of a story, it was still excellent I give it a 10 and two thumbs up. Oh yeah and it proves that your deepest wish's and dreams can come true. (Tear, tear)I love this movie, personally if anyone says it sucked than I will say "Shame on you." Because it was a delightful little movie and I'm glad that at least SOME people liked it.


The dubbing/translation in this movie is downright hilarious and provides the only entertainment in this otherwise dull and derivative zombie flick. I haven't laughed so hard in my life as I just did watching Zombi 3 (and I've seen some really bad dubbing in my life, believe me). Seriously, the filmmakers could re-edit this movie and release it as a comedy and make millions of dollars. It's just that funny.But... If falling off your couch laughing at the dubbing in a Fulci zombie movie isn't your cup of tea, then AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS.


Caught this film at the Arizona International Film Festival. I wasn't expecting a lot (though the festival's director told me it was one of the best films submitted). Five minutes into it I was sold. Shot in B & W on a shoestring budget, this film is hilarious. The acting is solid, the writing is solid and the look of the film is solid. The acting is probably the biggest revelation, since most films shot on low budgets tend to have amateur or stagey acting. Not this one. It features one of the most convincing, endearing and funny portrayals of a character with Tourette's Syndrome I've ever seen. The plot is convoluted without being confusing and raunchy without being gratuitous. If you get the chance, see this movie. Filmmakers like Majkowski (hope I got that right) deserve the chance to strut their stuff to a wider audience.


Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.


I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.Avoid this film like the plague.


WOW. If you think that a film can't fatigue in some way, then you haven't seen Dog Bite Dog. This film pulls no punches, and it doesn't shy away from showing very disturbing images at all. Much like Salo, this one shows us the dehumanization of the human spirit. It is gritty, dark, depressing and hopeless, but it is also one of the best films to ever come out of Hong Kong.The script is much more of the same, but don't go on thinking it is incredibly clichéd. It basically is about a troubling and obsessive detective in a cat and mouse game, against a professional and emotionless hit-man. While the script offers nothing new on the surface, it does provide a lot of questions about the dark side of humanity. Is violence really that necessary? Do we become more or less human when we abuse a 5 year old child, without pity, without remorse? In turn, we humans act no less than rabid dogs when we are blinded by anger, this is a sad truth. It is a topic that the director brilliantly explores, without limiting himself at all. Besides the cat and mouse chase, the script also develops two separate story lines for the main characters. One is about love, and the other is about redemption. Even if the script isn't that new, it is still wonderfully written and it keeps you glued to the seat at all times. The acting is really, really good. Edison Chen as the Hit-man is incredible; he proves that he isn't just any pretty face. He is ruthless, vile and beyond likable. Sam Lee as the obsessed cop is also outstanding. The supporting cast, in short, is excellent. The music is also worth mentioning. Very somber score by Ben Cheung, with some effective light hearted songs played at key dark moments in the film. The cinematography by Yuen Man is also really good.Overall, this CATIII film is highly recommended. Very well paced, incredibly acted, marvelously scored and just really good at the end of it all. However, as many have pointed out, this is not a movie for everyone. If you dislike strong violence then you should stay away from this one. If you don't like seeing heavy negativity in film then this isn't for you too. In the end, a powerhouse film, 8/10.


This movie stars Jay Leno as a Detroit cop, Tony Costas and Pat Morita as a Tokyo cop sent to Detroit to retrieve a stolen prototype of a car motor. A Japanese man traveled to Detroit hoping to sell it to a up and coming car company ran by a man named Derrick Jarryd. Unfortunately for him the men who were supposed to negotiate the deal killed him and took the prototype. An angry Derek Jarryd tries to distance himself from Phillip Madras who led the men. But Madras(played by Chris Sarandon) has none of it and threatens Jarryd forcing him to continue their partnership. Meanwhile in the same junk yard where the Japanese man had been killed, a friend of Tony Costas was also killed by the same men. Tony's friend had been watching the junk yard.Tony sets out to find the killer against his superior's order. Tony is on robbery while obviously homicide should investigate the case. While Tony is investigating the crime he runs into the Japanese cop and mistakingly he arrests him. Eventually they end up working together on the case. They make an odd pair and there are some genuinely amusing parts as well as some ridiculous scenes such as Pat Morita jumping and kicking right through a the windshield of a moving car and kicking Madras in the head. But it ends up being an enjoyable buddy cop movie, at least in my opinion. Jay Leno is no actor, but he is likable in the role and Pat Morita is good as well. Still, they make for one of the more unlikely buddy cop duos in an action film. If you liked buddy cop films, cheesy 80's movies or you want to see Jay Leno as an actor then I recommend this movie.


This is my first comment on IMDb website, and the reason I'm writing it is that we're talking about ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER! 'Ne goryuy!' will make you laugh and cry at the same time, you will fall in love (if you're not a fan yet!) with Georgian choir singing tradition, and possibly you will accept the hardships of your own existence and just feel good after watching it:) What I like a lot about this film is that actors in the non-leading roles create vivid and memorable characters and are just as interesting and important as the central character. The film is starring Vahtang Kikabidze (who is great), but you will remember every single face around him in the film. You will find yourself quoting their lines, that have become household names for so many Russian-speaking people. A film to live with. Simple, yet deep, you will want to watch it again and again.


"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."


I would have enjoyed this movie slightly more had not been for Jason (Herb) Evers constant harping on experiment. Many early reviewers of The Seven Samurai accused Toshiro Mifune of overacting. Yet, as more and more critics viewed that film they saw it as being purposefully done. Jason Evers is obviously not Toshiro Mifune, and his overacting is exactly that.Most of the actors in this B classic were rather good actors, minus Evers and the showgirls. If you watch this movie, you would have noticed Evers shouting almost every line, that is until he is smoking and blowing the smoke coolly out his nose. The special effects were par for the course in a B movie such as this one. In hindsight, there isn't much that stands out in my mind as fantastically good or bad for this movie.


This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.


Good show, very entertaining. Good marshal arts acting. Good story plot. The entire main crew did a nice job from Robert Urich, to Chuck, Norris, Jennifer Tung, and especially a BIG hand to Judson Mills. An especially fine tribute to Robert Urich, in his latter days. A GREAT ! actor who will be truly missed.


Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in "Down To Earth." As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of "American Pie" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy "Heaven Can Wait," itself a rehash of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in "Lethal Weapon 4," "Dogma," or "Nurse Betty" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, "Down To Earth" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance."Down to Earth" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face "American Pie." This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent castamong them "The Full Monty's" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This," "SCTV's" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, "Down To Earth" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of "Hannibal") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of "Jerry Maguire"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of "Stay Tuned"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of "American Pie") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of "Sweet November") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo."Down To Earth" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of "Heaven Can Wait." The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of "Heaven Can Wait" based on his philosophy to "Do Something you can only do when you're hot." Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in "Down to Earth," Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with "Down to Earth" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of "Down to Earth" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score.


I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!


This is really a very bad movie. Why? First of all, the story is bad. It is an artificial story, combining all sorts of things together that make no sense. It just seems a wrong experiment. Secondly, the actors cannot play in a realistic manner. They cannot even talk as an actor should. Why did I buy this movie? And what must I do with it now?


Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the "Portabellow Road" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories.


Hubert Selby Jr. gave us the book "Requiem For A Dream" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. "Last Exit To Brooklyn" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the "real" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.


The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.


Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history  anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over  for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.


OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".


I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!! Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies).


While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.


Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.


It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified.


I'm not sure I understand where all these enthusiastically anti-grudge people are talking about here, perhaps it's just that some people like to rant about things.The movie was certainly imperfect (uneven acting, some may have had difficulties with the time-changes, actors all too willing to go places I'd really rather not go, etc.) but IMHO there were some things that more than made up for the imperfections.First and foremost, I LOVED the 'breaking of the rules' bit. NORMALLY when you leave the haunted house the baddies leave you alone, giving you time to regroup, get friends, and find the token mysterious paranormal type. NORMALLY (semi-spoiler alert) when you're hiding under the covers they can only get you through that little opening you peek through. NORMALLY at the end the ghosts somehow have become less creepy because you've found out they're just misunderstood, or they've been freed, or whatever.Secondly, the production was exceptional. While the movie was hardly special-effects-laden the supernatural bits while brief were extremely well done.Probably not the best sort of movie for those who think Freddy and Jason are the ultimate sort of horror (nothing against 'em, they've got their place), but great for those who've begun to take the conventions for granted and who don't have trouble with the time distortions.


I saw Arthur(the TV series and the books)years ago and never was fond of the show very much(if you're a fan of this cartoon,sorry if I'm spoiling it for you,but this is actually what I think).Lots of people liked it,but I didn't.The school kids characters seemed to fought all the time(especially Arther and DW),they were nice to each other frequently,but gradually I got tired of Arthur's complaining attitude towards everyone and his sister DW(however the name was spelled),and DW was an ADHD(or ADD)-like 4-year-old sister of Arthur who was sometimes demanding(which could be why Arthur got annoyed with what her routines were,like her imaginary friend and her stuffed animal collection etc.),Arthur's friends acted like teenagers instead of what they were like in the Arthur books,and the parents,well,they didn't care very much.The greatest cartoon was Rocko's Modern Life,not Arthur(no offense).


I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood!


I thought this movie was terrible. I'm Chinese, so I thought everything was totally wrong. Many of the facts were incorrect. The only thing right about Chinese history in the movie was when Wendy's mother explained to her husband about the statues that guarded ShiHuangDi. I also thought the fight scenes were very cheesy and fake. Many of the actors and actresses were not very great. Some of the jokes that were supposedly "funny" were really stupid. I think this movie should receive the worst possible rating it could get. Disney has really got to get more information about Chinese history if they want to create an extravagant movie. Mulan was quite accurate. Watch this movie if you want to waste some time.


David Lynch usually makes films that resemble puzzles put together the wrong way. They are interesting to look at and think about but they really don't gel in your mind. Perhaps art will always mean the most to its creator.The Straight Story is not a typical David Lynch film. Not that there's anything typical about them anyway. It's an odyssey through rural America. A real life journey Alvin Straight took on a lawn mower to get to his brothers house. He rode 300 miles from Laurens, Iowa to Mt. Zion, Wisconsin to make amends to his sick brother for past offenses.At the heart of this film is sweet voiced Richard Farnsworth. He brings Alvin Straight right to us in a simple and honest way. The fact that the film is slow paced matches Alvin's slow journey toward realization.Along the way Alvin meets a confused and frightened young girl. She is pregnant and has decided to run away from her situation. After listening to Alvin speak about family she reconsiders.Later Alvin witnesses a distraught woman kill a deer with her car. She complains that she has killed several and leaves. Alvin feels bad but is smart enough to cook up some dear meat that night.Later Alvin's lawn mower loses its brakes and nearly kills him. A nice man and his wife let him stay in their yard while he gets it fixed. They even let him call his sweet but slow daughter, nicely played by Sissy Spacek, whose haunted by a terrible tragedy in her own past. Alvin insists on paying for the call. The man even offers to drive Alvin to his brothers with pleasure. Alvin declines with thanks.While Alvin waits he also goes off to a bar with a kindly old man as they discuss the harshness of war and the price it took on their souls. Alvin even confesses a fatal mistake he made as a sniper that has forever haunted him.Alvin also encounters two bickering brothers who've repaired his lawn mower. He talks them down in price wisely calling them on their high labor and repair costs. He even helps them to appreciate one another learning from his own mistakes with his brother.The night before Alvin leaves the man's yard he takes his hat off to him. The man tells him it was an honor having him stay and asks Alvin to write to him. This scene is perfect in it's simplicity. It's heartfelt because it's so straight, so real.The journey continues and we can't help to get more and more involved with it. We want Alvin to get to his brothers. We want him to make amends. We want to know this world is full of forgiveness.This was Richard Farnsworth at his best. It was his last film and his performance was amazing. You can't help but to understand his pride, to listen to his wisdom, and to ultimately feel his pain. One becomes as taken with him as the man who offers him his back yard to stay in.If there's justice in the afterlife then Alvin Straight, his brother, and Richard Farnsworth are together sitting at a bar. I can picture them discussing their lives, regrets, hopes, and joys. As Alvin says in the film, "My brother and I used to look up at the stars." Well, I know they all are with the best view in the house.


Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: 1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) 2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) 3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! 5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.


Visually stunning and full of Eastern Philosophy, this amazing martial arts fantasy is brought to you by master director Tsui Hark, the man behind some of the best films Hong Kong cinema has produced. The special effects are beautiful and imaginative. The plot is a bit on the cerebral side, but is a refreshing change from films that treat their audience as if they were morons. If thinking is not your forte, however, this may not be your movie. Maybe you should go see the latest from the Hollywood studio's no brain club, but if you are looking for something more, he's where you will find it.


This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !


I couldn't keep from commenting after reading the very short "Not bad" commentary. This movie is much better than just not bad. The acting is stellar, even from the children in the cast, who don't play cute or anything else but act just like my son's friends. The movie is smart and expects it's audience to be as well. The double back flash story lines are imaginative and contribute to the story rather than act as time filler. I watched this movie with my kids and then I watched it again by myself a few days later. If you have kids and are sick to death of movies that inspire a diabetic coma with their syrupy sweetness, then check out "Holes." My 6-year-old enjoyed it as much as my 11-year-old, and my husband and I enjoyed it as much as the two of them. How many movies can you say that about?


Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.


A lush fantasy world with quirky characters and annoying 80's music. This epitomizes the 80's desire to rewrite fairy tales and make fun of how they work. Personally I liked Greensleeves and the other harsher characters. They had some of the more amusing lines.


Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it. And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl.


This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.


I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.


This little seen movie is a languid and laid-back giallo. It veers away from some of the cliché's of the genre and adopts a looser approach. It's about a woman searching for her missing lover; a psychiatrist who has suddenly vanished for no apparent reason. Her search leads her to a villa populated by a group of eccentric individuals. In true giallo style, murder is never far away.The cast is really rather good. We have Aldofo Celi (Thunderball), Alida Valli (Suspiria), Horst Frank (Cat o' Nine Tails) and a very young Sybil Danning (80's scream queen). The lead actress is Rosemary Dexter, and while I am not familiar with her, she does a good job in leading the picture.One of the defining features of Eye in the Labyrinth is its music. Atypically for a giallo it features a jazz-rock fusion soundtrack. This score, composed by Roberto Nicolosi, is reminiscent of Miles Davis, especially his work on In A Silent Way. It's an excellent soundtrack and really gives this movie a different feel than most gialli. The fusion groove accentuates the languid atmosphere and compliments the sunny, sea-front scenery that the film is mostly made up of.This is a giallo so we really need to talk about the murder set-pieces. Well, this film falls a little short in this regard. It's certainly not devoid of them but they are few and far between. The opening dream-murder being probably the best on offer as well as a memorable burning car sequence. But this really isn't a particularly violent film. Still, I don't think it should disappoint too many seasoned fans of the genre. The mystery is fairly compelling and it has enough eccentric characters (the idiot boy Saro and THAT unsettlingly inappropriate dubbed accent?) and moments of the bizarre to satisfy; while the sleaze-factor is upheld with a smattering of nudity throughout.Eye in the Labyrinth plays like a giallo version of an Agatha Christie mystery, as it features a group of unsympathetic characters in a villa, all under suspicion of murder; we have the obligatory flashbacks detailing their connections with the final hours of the (highly unsympathetic) murder victim. While this isn't a grade-A example of the genre, it's certainly an appealingly different one, as it doesn't borrow too heavily from other films of the sub-genre. For giallo enthusiasts I give this a thumbs up and hope one day it's given a nice DVD transfer. It certainly deserves the treatment.


-me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war)


This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I watched it with a large group of friends and after it was over not a one of us understood the plot. Aside from the lack of plot, the acting was atrocious, the "special effects" were not so special, and the writing was absolutely horrible. The movie's only redeeming factor is that it's so incredibly bad that it's quite funny. You can't help but laugh at a zombie being run over while actors are spewing crappy dialogue. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone looking for a good movie, but it's something that a group of friends can get together and have a good laugh about. It's now a running joke among my friends and I. 1 out of 10.


The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).


i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!


I have found this movie available for streaming on Netflix and thought I'd give it a try.The plot revolves around Ryan and Theo Taylor (Colm Feore and David Cubitt) who have finally seen each other after their father has passed away. Ryan and Theo at first argue about who did what. But later, Theo finds out that his brother Ryan is not only gay but he is dying of a terminal illness. So, Ryan and Theo spend their time patching up their differences.This is such an incredible film. I have only seen Colm Feore in Season 7 of 24 but he was phenomenal in this. David Cubitt, an actor I have NEVER heard of before did a phenomenal job as well.I would recommend this to those who are interested in the Gay and Lesbian genre. This is one movie you don't want to miss.I give this film 10 stars out of 10. Excellent film!


Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.


A good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. Peter Ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. Regardless of the favorable comments here, this film is awful. Badly directed. Badly edited. Badly acted. Badly written. You need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad.The muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns Ustinov conning his way into an American insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. How he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets, and hoodwinks computer expert Robert Morley into going to South America and stealing his identity).As a side plot, Ustinov romances fellow loner Maggie Smith, who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. She ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with Bob Newhart that go nowhere, while Ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of Newhart and Karl Malden. Then he Marries Smith and they fly off to Brazil, which has become the staple finale of almost every British caper comedy since (Nuns on the Run? A Fish Called Wanda?)The surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. By the end I was thinking I must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. Even a cameo by Cesar Romero didn't help it. One of the most unfunny, poorly paced 'comedies' I've ever seen, and certainly the worst caper. Don't waste your time. If you love this you need to see better films.


A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films.


Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling.


I saw it at Cinema MK2 Hautefeuille just one night after its first public projection in Paris. A very pretty film about three 15 years old teenagers, all of them just at about the same psychologically stages. Many of the scenes let us to come back to our adolescence age & our first feelings about sexual relations. it is possible to imagine that the director would like to reduce the first strong sensual feelings of the girls to lesbianism, but even in that case she doesn't corrupt the likelihood of the story. You can sometimes find the film a little slow but it is what creates this intimate atmosphere. I fund the young actresses of talent, special mention with Floriane and Marie, very convincing. There are many small details but this film also enabled me to discover what synchronized swimming is: impressing!


I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.


I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film.


Who votes in these ratings? "Jacknife" is a beautifully acted, brilliantly observed piece of work, with actors on top of their game, especially Ed Harris and the peerless Robert DeNiro(please don't mention Marlon Brando in the same breath of this man-see "Taxi Driver" for confirmation of this point). Is it a 'mundane' movie because it doesn't have sex/meaningless action/nudity in it. This movie is about the complexities of the characters involved. Ed Harris makes you feel every moment with him and his emotional outburst towards the end is heartbreaking. The part where he orders a young man in a bar to take off his army clothes is a wonderful observation of how fashion and the movies exploit tragic situations and how frustrated real men must feel to see a young upstart sporting military attire. While we are on this subject, "Casino" 7.8 out of 10? One of the greatest films of all time, from one of the greatest directors, starring THE greatest movie actor of all time, with the scariest film psychotic gangster ever, only warrants just above average? COME ON!!!!!


CHANCES ARE is a charming romantic fantasy about a woman (Cybill Shepherd) whose husband (Christopher McDonald) is killed shortly after learning she is pregnant. We then see the husband in heaven letting the powers that be know that he was taken too soon and that his wife needs him. He is told he can return to earth but not as himself. Flashforward 19 years where we see Shepherd's daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) preparing to graduate from college and encountering a young man (Robert Downey Jr.)who, it turns out is the reincarnation of her father. The film is a little on the predictable side...the story goes all the places you expect it to, but it is so charmingly played by an energetic cast (especially Shepherd and Downey) that you can't help but get wrapped up in the fun. Shepherd has rarely been seen on screen to better advantage and she and Downey are backed by a talented group of character actors in supporting roles. A lovely and charming fantasy that will engulf and enchant you.


A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit.


Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.


Another day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape "The Land That Time Forgot". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot? Despite being made few years before "Star Wars", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.


Well I have to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid, when I used to watch it on a home projector as a super-8 reel. Now there isn't much to recommend it, other than the inherent camp value of actors being "terrified" by replicas of human skulls. The special effects are pretty silly, mostly consisting of skulls on wires and superimposed "ghost" images.But there's something to be said for the sets. The large mansion in which it takes place is pretty creepy, especially since it's mostly unfurnished (probably due to budgetary reasons?).It definitely inspires more laughs than screams, however. Just try not to get the giggles when the wife (who does more than her share of screaming) goes into the greenhouse and is confronted with the ghost of her husband's ex.


ONCE UPON A TIME, there were different types of movies. These different movies coexisted even though each one had something different to offer....This seems obvious at first, but I thought I'd point it out during this review because it seems a few people may have forgotten. This is just a fun movie for Pavarotti fans. That's all it is. It doesn't claim to be anything else or anything grander. People who deride it as something that fell short of a promise aren't seeing the whole picture- literally. After all, Hollywood makes movies all the time that are shameless vehicles for people (Bodyguard or The Preacher's Wife w/Whitney Houston are 2 examples that spring to mind.)First I'd like to address the movie as a vehicle for Pavarotti. There are worse things in this world-- and worse movies. The singing is fabulous and the selection of arias is fun. The movie starts with Schubert's Ave Maria and then Leoncavallo's Matinatta. Pav sings arias from La Gioconda, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot but also sings popular music such as "I left my heart in San Francisco" and the song that was nominated for an Oscar & Golden Globe, "If we were in Love" w/music by John Williams & lyrics by Alan & Marilyn Bergman- all 3 previous Oscar winners.The story isn't that bad. It was built for Pavarotti so of course it's not going to be something that's profound or universally applicable to the average movie viewer. It's a story of a famous opera singer who was traumatized by a bad night at the opera years ago. When asked to sing again at the same place, the "MET" in NYC, he loses his voice from fear. Doctor Pamela (or Pah-MAY-lah in Italian:)) played by Kathryn Harrold- gives him a shot to cure his psychosomatic reaction. He offers her the chance to have a fling with him and she reluctantly accepts.They embark on an affair, she knowing he's married & promising not to fall in love with him and him thinking she will be just another woman. Despite all that, they fall in love (thus the song, "IF we were in love") and with her help, he overcomes his fear & goes back to the MET where he triumphs. I won't tell how it ends, but it's fairly predictable. Which isn't always a bad thing. The performances in this aren't that bad. Pavarotti (who plays Giorgio Fini) isn't an actor, so if you're expecting a Spencer Tracy or Tom Hanks performance, YOU are deluded, not Pavarotti. He knows he's not a thespian. What he is is cute, charming & charismatic. He is having fun himself, and if you can just let yourself have fun too, it's not so bad. One funny line is when he tells Pamela (Harrold) that she's a "thirsty plant, Fini can water you!" and of course, she says, "I don't want to be watered on by Fini!" Kathryn Harrold is very sweet and does a nice job as a semi-uptight woman who learns from this extravagant man to live a little. One of my favorite lines in the movie is: "Life never has to be life size." And there's Eddie Albert who does his usual good job as Fini's manager. There are several "themselves" cameos by real conductors, singers, etc. and it is filmed on location at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center. If you like opera, if you like Pavarotti, or if you can just let yourself go & enjoy a "little fling" just like he proposes in the movie- then you can enjoy this movie for what it is. I know I do- EVERY time. :)


I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability."Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun.


Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!


This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea.


Mystery Men is one of those movies that gets funnier over time. There is a naive innocence and "niceness" to the characters. It has become part of our family "culture," and we quote the characters often. It is my favorite film of the last two years. My kids are 13 and 11 and we all three love this film. Great acting and comedy. We love Galaxy Quest and Monty Python flicks too. Okay, we're not talking intellectual here, just Family bonding!


This movie is a great mocumentary. It follows the rap group, NWH, made up of Ice Cold, Tasty Taste and Tone Def through their unique path to gangster rap highs, lows and back to highs. Through trouble with women, egos, cops and whitey, this group gets to the top of the gangster rap world, as this movie goes to the top of mocumentaries. I know everybodies favorite mocumentary is This is Spinal Tap, for very good reason, however I think that if in the right mood, this movie is simply better. The laughs never end, even for someone not into the rap culture.I'm a white guy, that has no interest in rap music, culture or anything else associated with it, however I love this movie. Rusty Cundeif, who wrote the screenplay, songs and starred in it showed great potential and it is a shame that I haven't seen him since Fear of a Black Hat. However, I have seen him one more time than you have, and is that, that I recommend Fear of a Black Hat to you for quick laughs.Remember, "Don't shoot to you see the whites!....of their eyes? No don't shoot to you see the whites."FYM and enjoy the movie.


As others have said, "No, Luciano" is a more apt title or response to this movie title. For entertainment, the great opera singer should stick to singing.....not that he's a terrible actor. It's just that this movie stinks.The first 25 minutes were fine - a nice family movie, as it were - but after that it's nothing but a boring soap opera.Appropriately playing a singer, Pavarotti, as "Giorgio Fini," loses his voice a few times and the doctor, "Pamela Taylor" (Kathryn Harrold) comes to the rescue. The singer then falls for the doctor, the doctor slowly falls for the singer, the two argue all the time and on and on and on it goes.Pavarotti has a winning smile and is a likable guy. It's Harrold that spoils things and after watching her here I am not surprised she didn't become a star. There is nice scenery in the movie to enjoy, good shots of San Francisco and Italy, at least in the first half of the film. I got bored and don't remember much about the second half of it.