I read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, "Criss Cross." I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film. This movie is a "neo-noir" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status. The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn't.


Documentaries of this kind are often very opinionated. This film seems to take all opinions out and let the viewer decide what to do with the information provided. It is sad the conditions these poor people have to work in, this film does a great job of showing the ugly side of sweat shops. The film Mardi Gras: Made in China was a good way of showing the world how something as petty as beads for a celebration can effect the lives of so many people in another country.I had to watch this film for an English class where we spent our time talking about sweat shops and how some people are trying to eliminate them and this film helped get the topic rolling. It was a great, very informative movie and I'd recommend anyone see it, it kinda opens your eyes.


Oh yeah! Jenna Jameson did it again! Yeah Baby! This movie rocks. It was one of the 1st movies i saw of her. And i have to say i feel in love with her, she was great in this move.Her performance was outstanding and what i liked the most was the scenery and the wardrobe it was amazing you can tell that they put a lot into the movie the girls cloth were amazing.I hope this comment helps and u can buy the movie, the storyline is awesome is very unique and i'm sure u are going to like it. Jenna amazed us once more and no wonder the movie won so many awards. Her make-up and wardrobe is very very sexy and the girls on girls scene is amazing. specially the one where she looks like an angel. It's a must see and i hope u share my interests


"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.Before "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of it.


I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.A travesty.


Once in the Life means that once a hoodlum, always a hoodlum, and nobody gets in or out of `The Life' for free. Neighborhood hoodlums in New York sell drugs and run scams because they can't make it in the legitimate world, maybe because they have a criminal record, or a drug habit, or because they're just lazy. This simple story with a couple of twists about mostly despicable characters manages to draw compassion out of the audience for its main players because of their loyalty and compassion for each other. The film is written, produced, and directed by Laurence Fishburne, who also stars as 20/20 Mike (all hoodlums have nicknames), and is based on his play, `Riff Raff.' It feels like a play from beginning to end, especially during the longest scene where the three main players square off to decide who can be trusted. Often times the dialog comes very fast, much faster than it would on stage, and I think it's the film's biggest flaw. Mixed in as flashbacks throughout the film are poems from the street, a sort of iambic pentameter rap, that is violent and evocative of the world this movie discloses. The poetry makes it difficult to dismiss these men, these hoodlums who murder, cheat, and betray each other, as unworthy of our attention or below our contempt. The disturbing thing about this film is that its realism shows us not only how these people live, but how they suffer for the same reasons as us all. One is too stupid, another a junkie, and the last suffers from conscience while the audience wonders, or even laughs, at the irony of executioners demanding from him hanging in the gallows to tell jokes in the midst of his demise.


Gymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.


I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie.


The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.


By no means a masterpiece, and far from Errol Flynn's best, Istanbul still has much going for it. The locations and beautiful technicolour cinematography, bring us back to a time long since past. Errol Flynn does show moments of his past glory, and is OK as Jim Brennan, a pilot who's past comes back to haunt him. The picture is actually a remake of 1947's "Singapore", and the story seems awfully contrived and cliche' by today's standards. Also many of the supporting cast seem to be simply "going through the motions" in this picture. Many people have also compared it to one of the all time greats, CASABLANCA. While watching the film, I could see many of the similarities, but hey, Casablanca has inspired countless imitators, so take that for what it's worth. In closing, if you are a fan of Flynn, or old fashioned love stories, you might want to give this film a look. Otherwise, I'd recommend Casablanca, or The Maltese Falcon, as a good introduction to some of Hollywood's classics....


Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.


I think that my favorite part of this movie, the one that exemplifies the sheer pointless, stupidity and inanity of the proceedings, comes at the climax of the film. DOCTOR TED NELSON and his unmarried friend the Sheriff have finally cornered the Melting Man on a landing on some stairs in an electrical generating plant. Keep in mind that Nelson has been looking for the MM for nearly the entire film, and that the MM has killed and eaten several people at this point (including his boss), and Nelson is very aware that MM is violently insane and hungry for human flesh and blood.So the Sheriff has his gun pointed at MM, who is, and I give the movie and Rick Baker props for this, the most disgusting and terrifying object in human form that we have ever seen. And he yells a very important question to DOCTOR TED NELSON: "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?" The camera cuts over to DOCTOR TED NELSON, and it's obvious that Ted has no idea what to do next. Apparently Ted was so intent on the problem of FINDING the Melting Man, he never thought to bring along some restraining devices, a lasso, or straitjacket, or a net, or some tranquilizer darts, or maybe a New Age tape by Vangelis to soothe the savage beast.So the sheriff panics and shoots, the Melting Man goes berserk, and hilarity ensues. Maybe this explains why NASA has been screwing around with the Space Shuttle program in sub-lunar space for the last 30 years instead of going back to the Moon or out to Mars like everyone knows they OUGHT to be doing. I dunno.Anyway, that's the kind of lousy, lazy writing and direction that undercuts every aspect of this movie. It's hard to say how good the actors actually are, because the movie has complete contempt for their characters.Two other incredibly painful sequences also ramp up the stupidity of the proceedings: There is a scene featuring the lumpiest old couple in the world trying to steal lemons from a grove, only to be torn apart by the Melting Man. This scene is a nadir in 70s cinema. I can guarantee you've never watched a more pointless and irritating setup with odder looking people in your entire life. And the Melting Man's assault on the lady who lives in the house where they keep a horse who pees on the walls defies every attempt to process it.(BTW, I think famous film director Jonathon Demme has a walk-on in this scene as the redneck husband who goes in first to check on the house and never comes out again). The only thing that keeps the actress from literally chewing the scenery is that, as I said, their horse has apparently been peeing on it. And we are forced to watch her hysterics for at least two minutes longer than any SANE film director would hold the shot. Burr DeBenning ought to beat the crap out of IMM's director and photographer. I remember him from an old Columbo episode where he looked MUCH better than he does here - no one's idea of a leading man, but solid and unobtrusive. But no one could possibly be as unappealing in real life as his director makes him look here. Everyone else comes off a little better except for the old couple (and shut up, I know they were being played for laughs, but I ain't laughing!) but not much. This definitely falls into the 'So Bad You Can't Look Away' category of cinema disasters. Still, I'd watch it again before I'd watch a lot of other 70's and 80's abortions ( "Track of The Moonbeast" and "It Lives By Night" come to mind), and MST's coverage of it is great fun, so if you get a chance, watch the MST version.


This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting. The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging. Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing. The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.


Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is "Boring" and "Dumb".I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...The movie on this DVD was so "DARK" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier.


Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.


I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...


I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...There were great script moments, such as:Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.


Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk.


I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen "South Pacific" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget.


My wife and I are semi amused by Howie Mandel's show.. I also like Shatner - even when he's at his most pathetic..But this is absolutely the worst show on television.Please cancel this show. It sucks a**.The only positive thing I can say is that the girls are hotter on this show and seem to wear less clothing than Deal or no Deal...The questions are a mixture of way too easy and incredibly obscure. And watching Shatner or the contestant say "Show me the money" makes me want to vomit..This one will not last.


let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the recordfirst of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*cksecondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash


Paperhouse is the most moving and poignant film I've ever seen. Often classed as a "horror movie" this, I believe, is a grave error. Some journo once called it "the thinking person's Nightmare on Elm Street" and while I accept the logic of his conclusion I can't help but think it's a tag that is ill deserved and misleading. Those that can only see horror are truly missing out here and only serves to demonstrate they're really not thinking at all. In fact, just attempting to classify this wonderful work is probably a bad idea. Quite simply, Paperhouse is perfect in every exquisite detail and will always have a special place in my heart. As someone wiser than me once said, "the film hits you on a completely emotional level", which may go some way to explaining why my comments are so unrelentingly gushing. To be honest, I make no apology for this so if you feel my words are too saccharine for your taste, stop reading now because there's more to come. It's so rare to find a film that has at its heart the pain and heartache of childhood and the struggle to overcome the dreadful feelings of isolation and loneliness that can completely overwhelm us at this fragile time in our lives. Even more unusual to find child actors who can actually play their roles with the sensitivity and intelligence required to make it all work. In Charlotte Burke and Elliott Spiers we had an inspired piece of casting and the lasting impact of Paperhouse owes much to their ability to portray the melancholy and alienation of childhood (often overlooked) in a seamless and convincing way. And yet both of these brilliant young stars seemed to have slipped through the grasp of the studios and have somehow faded away. Add to all this an incredibly talented director (Bernard Rose), imaginative cinematography and the most beautiful and haunting soundtrack you're ever likely to hear and you may start to get an inkling of why I have such affection and affinity for this film that no amount of words can express.


Wasn't sure what to expect from this film. I love watching Brosnan in any movie, he's always good, but this was totally different. He's a mess, and plays being a mess very well. In fact he reminded me of myself a few times back in uni :) So yes, there's not a lot of violence, there's not a lot of action, but the dialogue is cracking, the acting is superb and very refreshing, and it's pretty funny too :) I don't think you'll come out of the cinema going "Wow! I was blown away", but you'll come out smiling having enjoyed a good film. Can't ask for more than that.Oh, and if you're lucky, some moron will put the adverts reel in wrong and you'll get inverted, upside down, reversed (with reversed audio) adverts!! Brilliant. Nothing like watching a Jack Daniels ad where the drink goes back into the bottle from the glass with a gruff American "Twin Peaks" commentary :)


God Bless 80's slasher films. This is a fun, fun movie. This is what slasher films are all about. Now I'm not saying horror movies, just slasher films. It goes like this: A high school nerd is picked on by all these stupid jocks and cheerleaders, and then one of their pranks goes horribly wrong. Disfigured and back for revenge, sporting a Joker/Jester mask (pretty creepy looking, might i add), Marty begins to kill off those teens one by one many years later, after he manages to make them believe that their old abandoned high school is having a reunion. That is basically the plot? What's wrong with that? That's the beauty of 80's slasher films, most of them i would say. A lot of things could be so ridiculous, but they keep drawing you more in an' in as they go by. Especially this film.It features some outrageous killings, and some are quite creative as well. (poisoning of a beer can, acid bath, i can't remember a javelin ever being used before in any other slasher film either)It really is a fun, fun movie. That's all it is. Nevermind the fact that the characters are complete idiots, never mind their stupidity, and never mind the outrageous, random things that occur in this film. Such as lights being able to be controlled by the killer (when he's not even switching any buttons, you'll see) and toilets being able to cough up blood, baths being able to have acid come out of them, just use that as part of your entertainment! Because thats what really makes it entertaining.Movies like this represent 80's slashers. Never again could movies like this get made, know why? It isn't the 80's anymore. That is why you should just cherish them for what they are, good fun! I highly recommend this film if you're a hardcore fan of Slahsers such as Friday the 13th.One last note this movie also had a kick ass villain as well, Marty Rantzen. A disfigured, nerd, who kills all his old foes in a creepy Jester mask. A good villain makes a good slasher. Simon Scuddamore, who played Marty apparently committed suicide shortly after Slaughter High was released. That alone adds something creepy to the film, and sticks with it and it even makes you feel more sorry for the Marty character, i guess. All in all, great 80's slashers fun! It's a shame it will never be the same again...


This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic "NEW-COMER" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in "RAWANDA". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time.


Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue. This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.


"CASOMAI" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year. It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like "Don Camillo" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the "I do!" day :-)Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal


King of Masks (Bian Lian in China) is a shockingly beautiful and profoundly touching film. Winner of 16 awards from around the world, this film based on a true story centers on Wang Bianlian, a street performer in 1930s China who is growing older but has no heir to pass on his art of face-change opera. He has a unique talent of quickly changing masks in performance, and no one knows how he does it. He has a longing desire to have a grandson, as his art is a family heirloom that can only be passed on to a male heir. We then go to the streets, and see that people are selling their children because they can't afford to take care of them: some are even begging to take their daughters for free, because daughters are not worth much in this society. Wang Bianlian's story goes on from there.The film was so astonishingly good, the acting was amazing, and the issues were so weighty and well-addressed. There is the gender inequality and the depressing fact that in this time and place, no one wants a little girl. Also interesting to note is that the famed opera actor who always plays a woman and is known as the Living Bodhisattva is a man who dresses as a woman, and while he is famous and well-respected, he regards himself as something low, a half woman. As we go further into the film, the face the issues of human slave trade and its demand and thus the lack of a possible solution for it, the brutality and corruption of the military and police, and the helplessness and lack of power any individual can face due to unfortunate events or even good intentions.This is definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life, and Xu Zhu, the actor who plays Wang Bianlian, presents yet another beautiful performance.


There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!


A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed.


This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs.


Deceptive Advertising... I saw a commercial for Carlitos Way: Rise to Power that states "From the Producer of Scarface and Carlito's Way" LETS GET IT STRAIGHT... Michael Bergman did not produce Scarface, in fact he was 'editing room assistant' for Scarface. Not to take away from Bergman's talent... but in my opinion he should of had a little more class. I think I can speak for the masses when I say... We hate being blatantly lied to. As far as the movie goes, It was poor at best. I did think Puff Daddy did a good job. Although, Luis Guzman should be ashamed for working on this film. Overall this film did not do a good job filling in the blanks for Carlito's Way. It's obvious this project was an attempt to make a quick buck rather a good film.


Gena Rowlands plays an actress who loses her grip on reality when she witnesses the death of a fan of hers. She becomes increasingly deluded from reality, and as a result her emotional turmoil intrudes with her work as an actress. In the sense that she breaks all the rules of acting and improvises everything, yet still manages to engage her audience makes the film interesting (if a bit self-important) as a parallel of Cassavettes' own struggles as a filmmaker. There's so many ideas thrown around, and as result it becomes a bit muddled (I'm still pondering the relation between the dead fan and Rowlands, among many other things), but the way they're presented in their rawest form makes it a consistently interesting and thought-provoking film. Would be great on a double bill with Mulholland Drive.


This could have been interesting  a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family  but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department  a giant crab attack is merely silly  as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup! At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there  eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created  leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster  tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.


I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.


This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'


Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the "normal" people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled.


Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend


I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too.


Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!


Nothing happens.Then characters with no personality don't develop.Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing! There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.--PolarisDiB


This is one of the greatest child-pet movies ever created. I cry every time I see Shadow yelling "Wait, wait for me Peter!" as the family car is pulling away. This is a must see if you love animals! Best Movie Ever! The lines in the movie are sometimes stupid. Like when Sassy says to Chance; "Cat's Rule and dogs drool!" Lines like this I could do without, but when I was six I bet I loved that line. The storyline may seem hooky to some, but I like it. Shadow as the older dog who's preparing Chance to take over for him when he's gone is really moving when you think about it. It reminded me of my childhood dog. I think everyone can find a piece of themselves in "Homeward Bound."


In terms of visual beauty this movie is outstanding! I had no idea that Technicolor came out so early. Although I didn't like the ending, the entire movie is fantastic and makes me wish that I was in North Africa. The cast is excellent and Marlene Dietrich is a big plus and of course she is so alluring and I just loved her in this flick. Basil Rathbone is also perfect in this movie. I couldn't get over the scenery and the sets... The hotel, the palm trees, the desert, it's all there... the legionnaires also bring a "Beau Geste" feeling to the film. They certainly don't make movies like these anymore. Don't fail to watch this classic!


i thought this movie was really really great! Helena did an amazing job in it! I thought she played her character very well! she's an AWESOME actress!! :)the movie was also really funny too! The jokes were great! i couldnt stop laughing! :)i think everyone should see it... :)


There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station  while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.4. The "suspense" scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence.


Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never lethim direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off theset) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like AliceEvans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect fromteen-produced children's shows on british TV.Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate andill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it isa case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparentlyunengineered from a single mike, and a director who onlyintermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and wehave what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result ofrecent years.


A typical Clausen film, but then again not typical. Clausen writes, directs and play one of the leading roles. This is really a great film about normal people living normal lives trying to make the best of it. The 4 primary actors were fantastic.Fritz Helmut was convincing. You believe that he really is sick.Sonja Richter plays a nurse that really is an actor, but it turns out that she is the best nurse to take care of the old man.Everybody has problems and those who nobody believes in ends up being happy. But nothing good comes easy, they have to fight to win their life and love.


An illegal immigrant resists the social support system causing dire consequences for many. Well filmed and acted even though the story is a bit forced, yet the slow pacing really sets off the conclusion. The feeling of being lost in the big city is effectively conveyed. The little person lost in the big society is something to which we can all relate, but I cannot endorse going out of your way to see this movie.


The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it.


Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credentialDo yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.


A lawyer is drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when he becomes involved with a femme fatale in this adaptation of a Grisham novel. Altman creates a suspenseful, Gothic atmosphere but the script is weak. Sporting a Southern drawl, Branagh is convincing as the lawyer, and Davidtz is alluring as the object of his desire. Downey is likable as a private detective. Duvall has a small role, which does not allow him to do much with his weird character. Hannah and Berenger round out the impressive cast. After an interesting setup, the film bogs down and does not really deliver on its initial promise, but Altman is always worth a look.


I had heard some bad things about Cabin Fever almost as much as I heard the cultish hype. As it turns out, the first film from the new impresario Eli Roth, it's just a so-so effort with the IQ points dropping as the film progresses. There are worse movies out there, and surely more gory ones (while I'm not sure how the hype-meter got so high on the blood-count for Hostel, there is a good amount for genre fans here). The premise isn't necessarily bad either though: kids go to a cabin for a week of partying, only to come across a very sick man, covered in blood, whom in a panic they set on fire. He winds up dead in the water that feeds the reservoir, and soon the characters all succumb to the flesh-eating virus one way or another. The characters, either the lead college kids (including Rider Strong as the hero and James DiBello as the goofy side-bar) or the supporting 'village' folks are archetypal to the point of inertia, if not painfully so. As they meet their fates, the townspeople get pretty weird, and it just seems to be non-sensibly thrown together without the many laughs; 'Pancakes kid' comes out of nowhere, and maybe might have been funnier in another movie or by itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie, it just doesn't work. There's also a young police character who is even dumber and less convincing than the others. And the family that goes after DiBello following an incident has some possibilities that aren't realized. But all the while, Roth pumps up his script with common sense out the window and sudden scares and frights with people hacking up blood on one another and a killer dog rambling around. Which isn't all for not either. Now, unlike lesser Troma horror movies or even lesser ones of the 70s or 80s- to which I'm sure Roth is a die-hard fan- he doesn't make it unwatchable. It's also smart to not have any explanation for where the virus comes from. But unlike those films too, he also doesn't really have a fine idea of what makes for great campy-horror times. His film tries for that, of course, and only once or twice does he make it a goofy, bloody time (I did like the random bunny Strong sees while on the gurney). It's not even very poorly shot a lot of the time (albeit with its own contrived style-choices ala red tint on the lens or that story with the bowling-alley worker). It simply contains a lot of illogical scenarios and choices made (shave your legs with a deadly virus, uh-huh), and it aims for fairly typical ground. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. But at the end I found it to be actually un-exceptional genre territory that doesn't offend audience sensibilities ala Saw, but doesn't swing for the fence either as a clever B-movie. Roth also has the temerity to end the movie on a true note of 'what-the-hell' as the Santa Claus bearded convenience store clerk from earlier in the film serves a bunch of black people. It could work if he followed up on it with something better, or if he dropped it altogether. Same could be said for a lot of the movie. C-


What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost.


This animated movie is a masterpiece! The narration, music, animation, and storyline where all remarkable. My girlfriend and I saw it again for a second time and we got more insight from it. We invited a couple friends to see Spirit with us and they really enjoyed it a lot. When I asked them to come along to see it, they thought it was a movie about horses, but afterwards they realized it was more than that. I liked Esperanza, Spirit, Rain, and Lil' Creek, who reminds me of Nathan Chasing Horse who is Smiles A Lot in Dances With Wolves. Spirit has deep symbolic meanings and metaphors that I found to be empowering and inspirational.I saw Spirit for a third time and I want to go see it again. I enjoyed "Spirit" tremendously because its portrayal of American Indians is realistic, dignified, and non-stereotypical unlike the movie "The Road to El Dorado", which was a total farce because it portrayed American Indians in a disrespectful and stereotypical way. But Dreamworks has redeemed themselves by making Spirit a great movie that I found to be acceptable! I hope they continue to make more animated movies like Spirit, and I would like to see sequels or spinoffs to Spirit if its done respectfully and without stereotyping American Indians.I highly recommend this to others who have an open mind to go and pay to see Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.


Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.


It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show.


A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book.


Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?A beautiful fraternal love story.


In the year 1990, the world of Disney TV cartoons was certainly at it's prime. Shows like Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, DuckTales and Gummi Bears was already popular, and now Disney made another great cartoon and that cartoon brought the birth of the Disney Afternoon. That cartoon is called TaleSpin. It's about old Jungle Book character Baloo the Bear as he gets a job in the plane business. In the series he meets Kit Cloudkicker, former Air Pirate and good cloud surfer, business lady Rebecca Cunningham and her hyperactive daughter Molly. This series is very funny and has tons of great puns that you may not understand as a kid but understand later on in life. This is one cleverly written series and it's great to add to your DVD collection. Parents, buy this for your kids rather letting them watch all of those horrible Nickelodeon cartoons. If you liked TaleSpin, then check out "Darkwing Duck" and "Goof Troop". Spin it!


It's a gentle, easy-going 1950s comedy. Kim Novak belongs to a coven of witches in Manhattan. She puts a spell on neighbor Jimmy Stewart out of boredom but eventually falls in love with him, losing her powers. See, witches are permitted to have "hot blood" but not love. Elsa Lanchester is Novak's aunt, also a witch. Jack Lemmon is her brother, ditto. Hermione Gingold is the chief witch, and Ernie Kovacks is Sidney Redlich, an author who specializes in writing about witches.I described it as a 1950s comedy because it could hardly be mistaken for anything else. Everything is so smooth and polished, from the set decoration, through wardrobe and plot, to the performances and direction. Take the character of Ernie Kovacks. He's referred to as "a drunk and a nut." And here's how the movie demonstrates these traits. He asks for a second drink, and, though he always wears a jacket and tie like the other gentlemen, his hair is a bit long and tousled. That's a strictly 1950s version of a drunk and a nut. Nothing is out of place; everything is tidy and free of dust. The soles of Jimmy Stewart's shoes are barely scuffed.And the Zodiac Club, where the witches hang out. It's called "a low dive." Yet it's a clean, dark place with polite waiters, a quintet of musicians, neatly dressed clientèle, and potted plants against bare brick walls. That is not my idea or yours of a "low dive" -- not even for Greenwich Village in 1958. My idea of a dive in Greenwich Village is Julius's or The White Horse Tavern or The San Remo or The Swing Rendezvous, a now defunct lesbian hangout. The Zodiac Club is a high dive compared to these.The kookiness we always hear about is muted by today's standards. I mean, Kim Novak is odd because she runs around her apartment in her bare feet. And she wears a lot of black clothes like the Beatniks of the period did.But never mind all that. It's an enjoyable romantic comedy. Kim Novak is effective as Gillian, who runs a primitive art shop for the uptrodden. She has a strange beauty, bulky and ethereal at the same time. She glides rather than walks, a wispy presence. Her eyebrows seem drawn with a set of plastic French curves. And Jimmy Stewart is quite good as the bewildered and bewitched victim. In the 1930s he usually played in light roles. In the postwar years and for much of the 1950s he was the tortured protagonist, but here he puts his early experience in comedy to good use. Who could resist laughing when Hermione Gingold forces him to wear a shawl and drink a hideous concoction of putrid fluid in order to cure him of Novak's spell? It's good to see him as a stooge instead of the angry and indignant man of principle he was in danger of becoming. Richard Quine directs the movie quietly, without fireworks or special effects, and does some interesting things that the play couldn't have had. Note the scene in which Novak casts the spell over Stewart, when the Siamese cat's face and ears seem to merge with Novak's startling eyes.Ernie Kovacks in the 1950s was a well-known television personality. There was never anything quite like The Ernie Kovacks Show before -- or after. It brings the word "surrealism" to mind. He could stage five minutes worth of wordless and indescribable tricks in an unpopulated room with only Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra as background. And he did an unimpeachable sketch using the character of Percy Dovetail, an effete poet. The credits kind of skip over The Condoli Brothers but that's rather casual because these two guys -- Pete and Conte -- were virtuoso trumpeters with independent careers in jazz ensembles. Conte was later a member of Doc Severison's band on Johnny Carson's Late Show.The third act kind of bogs down a little and becomes more "romantic" than "comedy". But it's never dull. The whole film rolls along as neatly as Van Druten's play and the kids will probably get a kick out of it too.


I saw this with few expectations and absolutely loved it! Bend it like Beckham is a fairly typical coming-of-age movie about a fairly atypical girl. This is Parminder Nagra ("ER")'s breakout role, playing Jess, a teenager in England who is caught between her traditional Indian family and her love of football (that's soccer to us North Americans). And even though she's actually much older than her character, she plays the role pitch-perfect.This is a movie about friendship - specifically Jess's friendship with Jules (Keira Knightley), her teammate who is also going through family issues, especially with her mom, who wears purple nail polish and little bows on her shoes, and who wants Jules to be more feminine, wear lacy underwear and flirt with boys and is terrified that playing sports means her daughter is a lesbian. Jules and Jess both love playing the game and have issues trying to convince their families to let them go after their dreams. They also, unfortunately, both love the same man - Joe, their coach (played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). The love triangle causes some strain in their friendship.In some spots, Bend It Like Beckham falls into clichés. In others, scenes drag on far too long, and this movie probably could have benefited from overall tighter editing.But this was a refreshingly fun film about growing up, culture clash, and the love of football. It's about female empowerment, chasing your dreams, and supporting your friends. Funny, charming and fun, Bend It Like Beckham is the little film that could... and did.Excellent. 8/10.


Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.It really IS only a movie as they say..


Okay - I'll confess. This is the movie that made me love what Michael Keaton could do. He does a beautiful parody of someone doing a parody of James Cagney, with charm to spare.The supporting cast are solid workers all, and will step right up and do a fine job in this '80s comedy. A spoof of the '30s-'40s gangster movies, it breaks new ground constantly, with remarkably original material. (Well, yeah - some of it has been copied since - but when this movie was made, it was original, and much of it has _not_ been copied elsewhere.) Watch Joe Piscopo warn people to not do ______, with one of the great taglines of spoofs. Watch Roman Moronie do things with English profanity that would make your spinster grammar teacher laugh. Watch amazing sight gags, such as pet-store owner Johnny Kelly using the price-tag gun on his puppies and dusting his kittens. Watch the greatest "warning against sex" educational film ever made. Watch the most amazing misrepresentation of church Latin done, while a guy who never took shop class assembles a Thompson machine gun from parts. Watch lines you'll be using in casual conversation for the next decade. Watch Maureen Stapleton do the perfect antithesis to the hard-working mom, with surprise gags that you'll never see coming.If you see a gag that doesn't hit your funny bone, be patient - another will come along in 30 seconds or less, and the odds are, you'll need to pause until you're done rolling on the floor several times. Duckies and Bunnies? Them, too. Watch for the subtle stuff - some of the sight gags can go by unnoticed the first few viewings.There are a few minor flaws - but it's probably the best of the spoofs. Some come close, but none of them are quite this good.


To anyone not familiar with c.S. Forrester's book this film should be interesting. It is colorful, well acted and depicts high adventure, but to those of us who know the original stories it is appalling. I could hardly sit through it.For some reason screen-writers seem compelled to rewrite the stories they are working on. Of course, the spoken word is different from the written word, and there are some episodes that would be difficult to film. But, why do the screen-writers rewrite the story instead of just adapting it? In this case the writers out-did themselves.Just a few examples: There was no mutiny on the Renown. The officers did take over the ship after the half-insane Captain was driven completely mad when he fell through a hatchway -for reasons implied but never given. There was no court martial. The court of inquiry was conducted in an almost congratulatory atmosphere. Captain Pellew does not appear appear in this part of the Hornblower saga, nor does Col. Ortega's wife. Hornblower, himself, was never in the brig either on the ship or on shore. There are plenty of such manipulations of Forrester's story.On a purely technical basis, I think the film's repeated use of the flash-back device hurts the continuity of the story.Why, oh why did screen-writers have to mess up a good story?


Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.See one of the other versions of this story instead.


I watched the un-aired episodes online and I was so sad that the show won't be back. It had the best cast of mature, talented actors and an amazing chemistry. It seemed like all the actors are personal friends in real life. Towards the end the show became engaging, sexy and highly watchable. Of course, some of the story lines are not realistic, so what... The characters are all likable and you root for them. The show reminded me a cross between 2 other favorites: "Sex and the City" and "Felicity". Big kudos to all the cast. Note to ABC execs: Nielsen ratings reports do not show you true results. The show audience will mostly record it. I've been very disappointed with major networks for flooding us with reality-TV or teenage oriented shows. Why to get a mature, thoughtful, well-acted material we have to switch to HBO or FX? I can only thank the network for putting the rest of the episodes online. The new stream media will gain more and more popularity among viewers.


The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you.


Most of the feedback I've heard concerning Meatball Machine has been pretty mixed. A couple even saying that they think "it sucked". Well, to those people I say, get some f@ckin imagination and go f@ck yourself. This was a very entertaining flick.The story starts with this mechanical bug which attacks and somehow transforms its hosts into these Gwar-costume looking, deathbots called Necroborgs. Eventually you learn that these mechanical bugs also attach a little parasite onto you, which then is able to control your actions due to hot-wiring your nervous system. Unfortunately for two love-seeking lonely young adults, they happen to cross paths with the mechanical bug, and before you know it transformations are taking place and blood is being splattered. Is there a way to stop the transformation? Maybe a way to stop this mechanical bug threat? Why do the Necroborgs fight one another? Do the two desperate singles get to express their feelings for one another and do the nasty? Only one way to find out.Going into Meatball Machine I was kinda wary due to the mixed reactions, but it turned out being a great surprise. A few unanswered questions, some average acting at times and a slightly confusing ending are the only weak points I can think of. From the anime feel to it, to the parasites becoming little characters themselves and even to the low budget feel, this movie hits the right mark much more than it misses. With a ever-developing story that's interesting enough to keep oneself asking questions throughout mixed with the cool make-up effects and blood splatter, this is one flick fans of bizarro/horror/Tetsuo/splatter fans should check out. 8 outta 10


Clearly rips off Hideo Nakata's Ringu (Ring, 1998) and Hongurai Mizu no Soko Kara (Dark Water, 2002), with hints of Ju-On (The Grudge, 2000), but atrociously done gore (a green corpse with red eyes!?) weak story, and a weak theme (I find it very difficult to find a picture message scary). There were two moments in this film that made me shudder, both involving an unexpected hand, and after Oodishon (another Miike Takashi one, this one from 1999) had me tingling all over for hours after seeing it, and all of the films this steals from were actually scary, I can't see this film as anything other than a sell-out to the western popularity of the big Japanese horror films. Two out of ten.


There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.Direction: Non-existent.Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.


As you all may know, JIGSAW did not make its way to Blackbuster because of a member of Full Moon's own staff, Devin Hamilton. Devin is the one who sells to all of the video chains. He recently released a movie, BLEED, which he was selling to Blackbuster at the same time as JIGSAW. He convinced the Blackbuster buyer not to take any JIGSAW, and double the number of BLEED. The result is that JIGSAW looks like a flop, and BLEED looks like a hit. The major problem with that is that BLEED is one of the worst movies ever, and as we all know, JIGSAW is, well, gold. I urge all of you to go on to the BLEED page on the internet and vote for the movie that wronged JIGSAW, and all of your talents. Likewise, you should go to the JIGSAW page and cast high votes for it (if you already haven't). We need to get JIGSAW up to at least an 8 or 8.5, and BLEED down to around a 2 (thus putting it on the internet's 100 worst movie listing). Also, try to convince friends and family to do the same.Hope you all are doing well, - Matt


Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.


I had VERY low expectations for this alleged "re-imagining" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.


For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see how bad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny and bad, because I had seen "Voyna i mir" (1968). Shall we begin? Here we go...Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...The rest of the characters are not much better.The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV."User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of "Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucks so much that it's funny!").In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy "going with the flow".I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team". Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus."Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention.


Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.


I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.


As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be "fruity." This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.


One of the most peculiar oft-used romance movie plots is this one: A seriously messed-up man falls in love with a terminally ill woman, who turns his life around before dying. Occasionally this story is done well and realistically (as in "The Theory of Flight", an excellent weepie), but more frequently it's done like it is here, where as usual the heroine dies of "Old Movie Disease". You know, the terminal illness that has no symptoms but one fainting spell and a need to lie down as you're telling your lover goodbye forever; and your looks aren't affected one bit (and since this is the 70's, neither is your sex life). This is one of the worst versions made of that particular story, where a very silly script puts two incompatible and unbelievable characters together, and they're played by actors who are completely at sea.This has got to be the worst performance of Al Pacino's career, and I say that after having seen "The Devil's Advocate" only two days ago! He plays a control-freak, emotionally constipated race-car driver, and plays an unlikeable character lifelessly. He seems to constantly be asking himself why he's staying around the grating Marthe Keller (so does the audience), and spends most of the movie just... standing there, usually with his mouth hanging open. The only time he shows any sign of life is towards the end, where his character proves that he's changed from uptight to liberated by doing a hilariously bad Mae West imitation. Hey, it *was* the seventies!Marthe Keller is equally terrible as the dying love interest; her character was conceived as bold and free and touching and uninhibited and full of life even though dying, and was probably meant to be played with an actress with the sensitivity of, say, Vanessa Redgrave or Julie Christie. Instead, they got the expressionless face and heavy German accent of Ms. Keller, who comes across as more of a scary Teutonic stereotype ("You VILL eat ze omelet!") than anything like lovable. She's supposed to be reforming Pacino and filling him with courage and spirit and all that, but it doesn't work that way, it's more like she's harping on his faults in the most obnoxious possible fashion. This makes for one of the least convincing romances in movie history, where you can't believe she'd be with someone she finds so worthless, and you can't believe he's with someone who gets on his nerves that much.Some bad-movie fans call this a cult classic, mostly because of Pacino's silly "liberating" Mae West imitation. The scene is a scream, especially in context, but not worth sitting through the rest of the film for. No, only see the film if you're a serious bad-movie aficionado who is especially interested in studying Extreme Lack of Chemistry between leading actors, or Very Bad Casting (not only are the leads terrible, but Pacino's other girlfriend is played by an actress who looks and sounds just likes Keller with shorter hair, I got them totally confused). This isn't one of those laugh-a-minute bad movies like "The Conqueror", it's just a really, really bad movie.


An unexpected pleasure as I had heard nothing about this film.Shameful since it warrants having a wider audience.A wonderfully humane story with a social message gently told, although admittedly predictable in its resolution. Solidly acted by the principals. Beautifully photographed with muted colors floating against grey that captures the nostalgic tone of the film.My recent foray into Chinese film (Shower, The Road Home, Not One Less) has been an exciting one that I hope to continue exploring. China and its people is an amazing canvas for film-makers. "The King of Masks" can be highly recommended as a starting point for anyone similarly interested in recent Chinese film.