A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy  what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON.


Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by1. never providing most of Che's story; 2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; 3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; 4. barely developing an idea, or a character; 5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; 6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; 7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and 8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)


Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone.


First of all let me say that I had to think a lot about writing a comment for this movie. The best review for this kind of Cinema can be just the silence. Movie addressed to housewives and to grandmothers. This movie tries to look "genuine" and the characters should be supposed "real people". An Italian could never think that the characters might be "real": they are just "low-profile" stereotypes. It gives a very misguised vision of what life is in the Italian countryside. The plot is weak (plot? which plot?) and the humour does not make laugh anyone older than 12.


The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast. For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt.


Reading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved this film.


Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio. Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.


This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight.


A very enjoyable film, providing you know how to watch old musicals / mysteries. It may not come close to Agatha Christie or even Thin Man mysteries as a film noir, but it's much more interesting than your typical "boy meets girl" or "let's put on a show" backstage musical. As a musical, it's no Busby Berkley or Freed unit, but it can boost the classic "Coctails for two" and the weird "Sweet Marijuana". The film runs in real time during a stage show, opening night of the "Vanities", where a murder - and soon another - is discovered backstage. Is the murderer found out before the curtain falls? Sure, but the search is fun, even though somewhat predictable and marred by outbursts of comic relief (luckily in the shape of the shapely goddess of the chorus girls, Toby Wing). The stupid cop is just a bit too stupid, the leading hero is just a bit too likable, the leading lady a bit too gracious, the bitchy prima donna bit too bitchy, and the enamoured waif a bit too self-sacrificing, but as stereotypes go, they are pretty stylish. There's a bevy of really gorgeous chorus girls, who are chosen even better than the girls for a Busby Berkley musical of the same period, who sometimes tend to be a bit on the plump side. Yes, this film could have been much better than it is, and the Duke Ellington number is an embarrassment, but if you enjoy diving into old movies, this will prove to be a tremendously tantalizing trip.


This was a good movie. It wasn't your typical war flick but something a bit different. This movie showed us recruits in training before the war and not actually fighting a war. This film is one of the more realist views on war and the army than most other films like this made. Colin Farrel did a great job at portraying an army recruit and Clifton Collins Jr and also Matthew Davis contributed reasonably well. Seeing Colin Farrel move from b grade to a grade in a few short years, You would never thought it would happen. I will also add that the makers of tigerland did a great job at filming a movie in the year 2000 and making it look like 1970 was a good touch. Its good to see talent used wisely and i hope to see this same talent again in the near future.


A must see movie for anyone who ever went to camp, or wanted to. This film captures the absolute essence of what summer camp is all about. It is funny, it is compassionate it makes you want to watch more about the characters once the credits begin to role. If you have not seen this movie..what are you doing? get off you butt and run the video store. Have a great summer :)


I was very surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I thought it was funny, sexy, painful, and warm. Andie MacDowell's performance was nuanced and vulnerable. For once, the director of a MacDowell film did not make her beauty another character in the film. The romance between Kate and her young man is lovely to watch and it plays out very well. Her relationship with her friends is both a thorn and a balm in her life. Imelda Stalinson, who has been a MVP in so many British films, does a great job in this. There is some tragedy in this but I think the film is saved in the end by the brilliant acting, clean direction, and witty writing.The film quality is excellent and the music is good, too, though unavailable on sound track.


When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.


It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.


Robert Stack never really got over losing a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Kyle in "Written on the Wind" to Anthony Quinn's 12-minute performance in "Lust for Life." Stack plays the deeply disturbed, alcoholic son of an oil tycoon. He has lived his life in the shadow of the friend with whom he was raised, Mitch, played by Rock Hudson. They both love the same woman, Lucy, (Lauren Bacall), who becomes Kyle's wife. Kyle's sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone), is a drunken slut who's in love with Mitch. Their story plays out in glorious color under the able direction of Douglas Sirk, who really dominated the melodrama field with some incredible films, including "Imitation of Life," "All that Heaven Allows," "Magnificent Obsession," and many others.Make no mistake - this is a potboiler, and Stack and Dorothy Malone make the most of their roles, Malone winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. There's one amazing scene, mentioned in other comments, where she wildly dances to loud music as her father collapses and dies on the staircase. We're led to believe that Marylee sleeps with everyone, including the guy that pumps the gas, because she's in love with Mitch. Mitch wants nothing to do with her. He's so in love with Lucy that, out of loyalty to Kyle, he wants to go to work in Iran to avoid temptation. I doubt he'd be so anxious to get there today no matter how much in love he was.Hudson and Bacall have the less exciting roles here - Hudson's Mitch is the good guy who's been cleaning up Kyle's messes for his entire life, and Bacall is Mitch's wife who finds herself in a nightmare when her husband starts drinking again after a year of sobriety. Sirk focuses on the more volatile supporting players.In Sirk's hands, "Written on the Wind" is an effective film, and the big scene toward the end in the mansion is particularly exciting. The director had a gift for this type of movie, and though he had many imitators, he never had an equal.


Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress.


i can't believe that NONE of the official reviews for this movie warn people that it contains two quite upsetting sexual assault scenes. It's as though our culture accepts this kind of behavior as simply sexual but not violent. My biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn't seem to condemn these assaults - as in, the woman who is repeatedly assaulted and pressured never holds the men accountable for their actions, and neither does anyone else. One man is stopped from completing the assault when someone throws a dagger at him, but he is reprimanded only with "you cannot force a woman to love you" rather than "you should never force a woman sexually, you jerk"... From a woman's point of view, the movie is a let down. It sort of "throws a bone" to women in letting them be both skilled fighters and leaders, but the movie is much more defined by the romance - which is characterized by the notion that human sexuality must involve an imbalance of power, with men dominating the woman they love. This amazing martial arts fighter doesn't use any of her fighting skills to try to fend off her attackers. She never even makes them apologize - rather, SHE seems apologetic. Overall, a depressing and upsetting movie, with some great cinematography and some cool fight scenes, but not as good as Hero by a long shot.


Watching The Tenants has been a interesting experience for me. It is the first film I have ever seen where I have shuttled at speed through parts of the (non)action - and I can normally watch anything from turgid action movies to Serbo-Croat indie and find them fascinating.The Tenants is frustratingly sluggish and over-orchestrated. One of the main problems of the script is there is little realistic character dialogue, apart from the set pieces where characters 'collide' in a very structured setting (to make this work, the film needed to feel more conceptual, which it didn't). This leads to a lack of realistic character development; everyone seems two-dimensional.The worse for this is the character of Bill Spear, aka Snoop Dogg. I found his characterization very uncomfortable and very unsympathetic. At one point, I even stopped the film because I got so annoyed by the character's aggressive, violent and monotonal delivery, the lack of any other personality layer apart from that of the reactionary "on" switch (which gets really predictable after a while) and I so desperately wanted him to have some redeeming qualities. However, one reason for this jar might be the nebulous time scape of the film (supposedly 70s, it feels and looks more early noughties). If it had been more securely fixed in the 70s, his character might have seemed more understandable.The lighting of the film was also awkward. All the way through, the soundtrack attempts to provide a certain gritty, jazz-infused atmosphere that just did not come off, largely because the set was too well-lit.The Tenants, to me, is an unbelievable film. It doesn't depict real people or propose any interesting ways of thinking about race, identity or the life of a writer, be they white or black.Strangely, I came away with the feeling that this project needed David Lynch; his eerie, clastrophobic and obsessive look and feel would have lifted both the actors and the script into something quite remarkable.


This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?


It's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a "musical", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to "Cocktails for Two". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of "Sweet Marijauna" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-up.


Now my friends, films like "La Bête" (aka "The Beast" or "O Monstro")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: "Orloff Against the Invisible Man" and "Alterated States".


I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie


This is simply the worst movie I've ever seen. Neither of the three central characters has any charm, and Erika's good looks aren't enough to carry the film. The lamest plot I've ever had inflicted upon me. Also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. Why did they bother?


This was incredible, meaning that it was hard to believe, that the "forgotten tribe" would make this astounding migration twice a year, and that the filmmakers, Cooper and Schoedsack, didn't stage some of the scenes and shots. But what shots they are! The cinematography, under mostly extreme conditions, is brilliant, and the score of Iranian music added to the video release give this memorable documentary an added richness.I had the pleasure of seeing this and "Kon Tiki" on the same weekend, which was a thrill and certainly made me see how tough and hardy and brave people can be, whether for primitive survival or the need for adventure or in the name of science.


Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.


The acting is pretty cheesy, but for the people in this area up in the 80s and are now Detroit area automotive engineers, this is a great movie. I even work with a Japanese supplier so that makes this movie even more funny.Jay Leno was showing his age last night on The Tonight Show! He looks pretty young here...17 years ago. The opening scene, with the drag race on what appears to be Woodward Ave was great.Leno also owns some bad a** cars now, it would e great to see a remake of this with his modern collection. I'm sure the blown Vette in the opening scene was his own car.Typical 80s movie. Watch it and enjoy. No computer generated crap!


Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.


My family and I have viewed this movie often over the years. It is clean, wholesome, heartbreaking and heartwarming. Showing us the compassion between two families of two countries thousands of miles apart and by the most uncanny of coincidences, it's almost as if the hand of God had to be intervening.5 yo Jodelle Micah Ferland who plays Desi the heart stricken little girl, does a magnificent job of acting her part, and for me she was the Priam choice for the lead role.All in all, a 10 out of 10. There are no downsides to this sweet human story. Children of all ages will tearfully, then joyfully watch this and it will bring the viewing family together with smiles and good feelings.


Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.


"I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!" The small town sheriff laments."This happens a lot in Chicago?" His deputy asks.Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of "Big Bean, IL". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie.


I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.


I began watching this movie with my girl-friend. And after 5 minutes I was alone.I succeed to stay until the end. It has been a painful experience.I liked jean hugues anglade, but I think that he needed to eat, as us, and thus he accepted to play in this movie. There are only 5 characters, and the rest could be called 'art' or something that I couldn't express, but that I didn't understand at all.The only worst movie I saw was crash, but I'm pretty sure now that I have enough experience to watch it successfully again.good luck!! ;o)


I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell.


Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released?


I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!


I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10.


... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest HemingwayIt is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris, "It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris." Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country.


In the early 1970s, many of us who had embraced hippy/acid/alternative culture wholeheartedly, had realised that mainstream society was not going to change in the way we thought it would. For me this film defined the tension of "now what?" that many of the people I knew felt at that time. Do we head for the commune and create our own vision of utopia or do we radicalize and push for change?From the futile gestures to police, the radical rhetoric, the music of Pink Floyd, to the love-making and the explosive images in the desert - so much is in there. It captures well a significant moment in time.


This very good movie crackles with tension. The stakes are, of course, high--will the police and Widmark, the public health doctor, apprehend the criminals who don't know that they are carrying plague before a full-scale epidemic breaks out? But smaller plot elements introduce tension in every scene--between Widmark and the police captain, between the bad guys played by Palance and Mostel, between Palance and a dying plague-stricken man whom Palance mistakenly believes is the subject of a manhunt because he has smuggled in some valuable commodity, between Widmark and his wife, and with the underlying question of whether the public is better served by informing them of the danger or hiding the situation to avoid a full-scale panic. The movie is beautifully shot by Kazan, in extraordinarily well-choreographed long takes shot on location in New Orleans, and ends in a stunning climax, where Palance flees like a rat from his pursuers, through the docks and warehouses of the city. The commentary is superb, probably the best that I've heard, covering the cinematography, the framing and lighting of shots, the production design, the casting of non-professional actors in small roles, and the ironies and parallelisms in the plot, like an insightful seminar on 1950s film techniques and film noir generally. Watch it once to enjoy the film on its own, and, if you are interested in film-making, a second time with the commentary on to learn.


If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.


Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.


A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!


"Life stinks" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich. The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.Yes indeed, Life Stinks.


From a modern sensibility, it's sometimes hard to watch older films. It's annoying to have to watch the stereotypical wallflower librarian have to take off her glasses and become pretty and stupid to win a man. Especially such a shallow and inconstant man. He's obviously a player (I wouldn't trust him to stay true to her) who doesn't want to settle down, who only looks at dumb attractive women and always calls them "baby" (ick!). Even after she totally changes her appearance and her life for him, he only goes to her after he's (supposedly) rejected by another woman and learns that Connie spent all her money renovating a boat for him. I wanted her to stand up to him, not pathetically chase after him! His sudden conversion within a few minutes was totally unrealistic and did not work for me.Apart from that subplot, I did like the movie. How can you not like sailors dancing with each other?! (You can tell they were from San Francisco.... ;D) The "rehearsal" dance was great, watching Ginger Rogers purposefully fall in and out of the "correct steps" was great. The last dance scene "Face the Music" with the beautiful costumes and the art deco set was beautiful. And I really enjoyed "We Saw the Sea" (though they did use it a few too many times, as if they realized it was their best song). Anyway, the plot was a bit weak, like most musicals (IMO) - and the songs were OK, but the dancing was worth watching the film for. I wish they could have showed some shots of San Francisco since that was were the film was supposedly set.It's also weird to see such a lighthearted naval film with the knowledge of what Hitler was already doing at that time. I have to try to suspend all knowledge to submerge myself into a made up fantasy land.


Dick Tracy wasn't the best for many comic book fans, because they wanted something with blood like Batman. Dick Tracy plays the innocence of just being a comic book with villains that have severe appearance disorder and being fun. Warren Beatty directs and stars as the main character that fights crime without even using super powers. I have liked Dick Tracy since I was a child because of the comic atmosphere of the main colors: red, blue, orange, yellow, green and black. This is the perfect film for anybody to watch with their children. Al Pacino is like the Jack Nicholson in Batman and plays Big Boy Caprice with zest. Madonna as the babe who is the second villain in this film doesn't play the same boy toy she represents. Like I said, no blood, obscenities, sexually innuendo or anything to offend anybody.


Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead. This has been a Samuel Franco review.


Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in "Witness for the Prosecution," should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in "The Ten Commandments" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.


Wonderful film, one of the best horror films of the 70s. She is realistic settings and atmospheres. As usual it was inevitable the usual negative comments. I have noticed that most horror films of a certain period many times fail to reach even sufficiency. Obviously because most horror movies are old and must be denigrati, is like a mental mechanism that moves the minds of the potential of music critics here.Before you read the review already knew what was the final judgment. In the film a good gift because 10 is really well done. Raines reads quite well and the film as a way in which it was produced reminds me a lot of Kubrick films. He really impression. Excellent film really. I consider a film anthology of years'70.


Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end.


SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel
if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way  in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf  not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother
did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic
.don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann)  although I don't recommend watching either.


Well, after long anticipation after seeing a few clips on Bravo's The 100 Scariest Movie Moments I had long awaited to see this film. The plot was simple, beautiful model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into an apartment building that's a gateway to hell. The Sentinel is a down right creepy film, even if it's a bit slow. It's a mix of The Omen and Rosemary's Baby. The acting is fine, and there are some truly disturbing bits such as the awkward orgy scene with the dead father and the chubby woman in the middle of the orgy eating cake and laughing The ending is a weird mix of deformed people and cannibals. It's a very odd, campy but in the end, I truly believe a great film! One of my favorites from the 70's, even if it's nothing greatly original. It's wacky and extremely creepy! Probably one of my all time favorites. 9/10


Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...


Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.enjoy.


This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.


"Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception.


I found this a very entertaining small kids movie that actually is geared more for adults with a lot of jokes and humor only they would understand. A few things are inappropriate for the kiddies, but just a few. Othewise, "The Grinch" (Jim Carrey) cracks so many jokes you can't keep up with them all, ranging from sexual to cultural to insider-Hollywood to racial.The film is very colorful and looks great on DVD. The little girl in here, "Cindy Lou Who" (Taylor Momsen) is really cute and the costumes and hairdos of the little people in here are fun to view. Anthony Hopkins' voice is pleasing, too, so having his narrate this elevates the movie further. His rhymes are fun to hear.I saw this in the theater, though it was "fair," but on DVD, it was far better. I've seen in three times and it got better each time.


I have seen the trailer for this movie several times over, and I have to say that Ned Kelly looks like it is going to be a wonderful film. When I saw the trailer for the first time, I could not take my eyes away from it (it got my attention for sure). Heath Ledger sticks to what he knows and what works for him, period pieces. Not to mention Orlando Bloom ,who is seen for a split second looks fantastic. I think that this movie will be a hit, and will be seen over and over again my many people.


I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb)


Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.He seems to have something to say.


Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.


This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.


Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in "Halloween" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming "re-imagining".It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.9/10


Just too many incidents of violence.The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: "Here we go again." There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.


If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot.


This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.


This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.


It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.


What a piece of junk this movie was. The premise was okay, but even in the beginning with crappy effects to blend in a giant with normal sized people (even the effects in Hercules was better) I knew this would be bad. But the really awful part of the movie is the dialogs. It's completely incoherent, silly and stupid. I felt like it had been written by some 9th grader in creative class and gotten a D-. I want to slap Casper van Diem and the other actors for following this movie through.I've had my share of cheesy and bad movies (I love the tremors series), but this... I do not recommend it at all. It's silly and the totally flabbergastingly bad dialogs will make you cringe.


Good exciting movie, although it looks to me that it's not been recorded on location in Thailand, it still looks realistic. Nice story about some girls having 'fun' in one of the most beautiful countries on the world. In real the Thai people are very kind.


I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments. Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.


William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".


Peter Bogdonavich has made a handful of truly great films, and THEY ALL LAUGHED is one of his best. The cast couldn't be better equipped to play this light but slightly bittersweet screwball comedy. Interestingly enough, the witty, light touch Bogdonavich so effortlessly employs gives the film a rather disarming emotional core. Fresh and immediate, the film starts with absolutely no explanation. There's no soundtrack music to cue us. We meet the characters in action, and as Bogdonavich glides down the streets of New York, the film unfolds effortlessly. Robby Muller's camera captures it all with an understated simplicity that seems accidental, but surely isn't. The cast is terrific. In every way, a classic.


I would almost give it 10 out of 10. However, there are some confusing parts as well as sections that are miss-leading which hurt the flow/continuity of the film. The story line is great and well composed; you will definitely want to watch this quietly to fully understand it. The characters are complicated and so is the story line, expect to be given only enough information to stop scratching your head, it's a film where all is explained in the end. The animation is great and the combination of femme fatal and film noir result in a great film that is unlike anything else I've seen in animation. It is a black and white film and its quiet dark in a few scenes so it's worth watching it on a good T.V, or plasma. The character voices do save this film in its English version, but it would have been more convincing if there were some French accents to emphasize that its happening Paris, I enjoyed it more in French with English subtitles. One the whole its well worth buying on DVD or BlueRay if they have it! And personally if you enjoyed this film you might also like; Waking Life & Ghost in a Shell 2 Innocence, this is just a personal suggestion.


I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.


I just saw the movie in theater. The movie has very few good points to talk about. Kareena's beauty and a couple of songs may be. Thats it. The movie is a complete disappointment in all areas. Anyone associated with the movie will be disappointed, even Mumbai Indians too (just now Chennai has made it to semi-final). But the worst I feel about the movie is the action scenes. Now days Bollywood is trying to copy action scenes from Hollywood. But they forget that Hollywood directors takes a lot effect to make it look like real. But unfortunately Bollywood directors do not have that much of time. They spend their time on songs and publicity of the movie. Now such too stupid action scenes may work in South as the audience just pay to watch their favorite actor killing bunch of people. But in Bollywood this is certainly not going to work. All the action scenes I wish I could have forwarded. At the end even some Chinese people appear from nowhere to beat Akshay Kumar. This is height of stupidity. Audience is not paying to watch such stupidity. I think Bollywood now should forget about the action movies. They cant make it. The last good action I have seen was from "Ghatak" and "Khiladiyon ka Khialdi". The current scene in Bollywood is really sad for action movie fans like me. Does these people see their movie after completion? Can't they figure out that the slow motion action (which is done using ropes) is too unrealistic and childish? Better not to have action scenes if you cant handle it. I just want to go back to Amitabh's era where movie like Zanjeer and Deewar were having thrilling action scenes. The sound effect was not very effective in those days, but visually it is much better than current era scenes. This movie now should open the eyes of the Bollywood movie directors. Please don't make any more action movies, until you acquire the art of making it realistic.


Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs!


"Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly.


I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox


An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities.


Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6."Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.


It's a real challenge to make a movie about a baby being devoured by wild canines and the mother being wrongly accused of murder funny but against all odds this one succeeds. Meryl Streep gives the performance of her life, melodramatic, overwrought but with that comic genius that keeps you laughing even as a mother struggles with the ultimate horror.If comedies about the infants being eaten by dogs are not your cup of tea you might be uncomfortable watching this and, yes, it is an odd choice of topic for a farce but really very little of the movie has anything to do with that as it focuses on giving Streep a showcase for her Aussie accent and facial contortions. Throwing in a slam at media bias and sensationalism and disregard for either the truth or ethics gives the movie the chance to make the daring point that those things are bad.


This movie does not really promote kids to be nicer and have better attitudes, as a family movie should, and this wouldn't be considered family anyway because it has some things in it that children shouldn't be seeing. Not the best ABC Family film if you ask me. If there were less sexual themes in the movie, then maybe it would be better. Hollywood isn't doing anything to make a movie better by adding in sexual situations. There's really no reason for them. At least this is a TV movie. I wouldn't want to waste my money on this garbage by renting it. If you have other things to do other than watch this movie, please proceed to them.