These days Spielberg's "The Color Purple" is mostly remembered for being nominated for eleven Oscars and winning zilch. What's even more alarming is that Spielberg himself wasn't even nominated for Best Director. Needless to say, the film-makers deserved more acclaim than they were accorded.The story concerns the trials and tribulations of Celie Johnson (Whoopi Goldberg), an African-American woman dominated at first by her incestuous father and then by her abusive husband. The film spans several years and focuses mainly on Celie's relationships with the women around her. It's told from a decidedly female perspective but you needn't fear that it's a saccharine 'chick flick'.The story is an interesting one, livened with humour at times although the central character's struggles are paramount. Some may not appreciate the change in tone towards the film's end but I didn't mind even though similar content in a lesser film would likely have me rolling my eyes.The film received three Oscar nominations for acting: Whoopi Goldberg (Best Actress), Oprah Winfrey (Best Supporting Actress) and Margaret Avery (Best Supporting Actress). I think that Goldberg and Winfrey were certainly deserving and Danny Glover was unaccountably stiffed.As already mentioned, Spielberg didn't receive a Best Director nomination for his efforts. Such an omission beggars belief, since Spielberg's direction here is top-notch. I'm not especially crazy about Quincy Jones's score but it's not below average by any means.In the end, the story is a satisfying one, well-told by a master film-maker working from Pulitzer Prize-winning material. Give it a try and you'll probably be as baffled as I am about how it could be so poorly treated on Oscar night.


When you see the cover of the DVD you're convinced this is some Class B cheesy cheapie, a film made for $1,000 in somebody's backyard.Wrong! This is quality material and really good. It's a comedy and a clever one at that. It also is very touching in spots, with a nice spot of kindness. The production values are very good (this looks excellent), the actors are known, the film's direction and sets are great. It's amazing. Who would have thought?Carrie-Ann Moss, playing against-type, is terrific, as"Helen Robinson," the June Cleaver-like wife; Billy Connolly is great as the grunting good-hearted zombie "Fido;" Tim Blake Nelson ("Mr. Theopolis") is a hoot is the neighbor with the sexy zombie girlfriend "Tammy," and Henry Czerny and Dylan Baker as dads (check) are excellent, too K'Sun Ray as young "Timmy Robinson," shouldn't be overlooked, either. In fact, he probably has more lines in the movie than anyone.If I explain the story it will sound so stupid that few of you would watch it. You'll just have to take the word of the people here who liked it and found it to be a very, very pleasant surprise. You need a dark sense of humor, though; an appreciation of the absurd.


This was the eighth and final Columbia Whistler film and the only one without Richard Dix who had retired from movies and was to die the following year. It's still a competent thriller, the machine carried on without him perfectly, but  something was missing: Dix! The stories in the Whistler series were always interesting, sometimes brilliant, the screenplays often noir always atmospheric, but it wasn't only the Whistler himself that hung it all together on screen, Dix did too.Young couple stepping out for a whole fortnight get the urge to marry in the pouring rain but are thwarted when the potential bride first disappears then is discovered to already be married before she apparently goes mad. Is the potential groom put off, even when the private dick he's hired to find her suddenly slugs him and lams, or is love blind? Who's twisting who is the question. Michael Duane in his penultimate film is OK if a bit of a wimp, lovely Lenore Aubert's finest moments came next film in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, and Richard Lane was wonderful as ever on loan from Boston Blackie. Also the only outing where the Whistler himself must have got wet from slouching about in the rain, unless he got sprayed with sea foam in Voice.A lot happened in this last hour, well worth watching over and over again as usual to fans of the genre like me. The Whistler radio series begun in 1942 carried on until 1955 clocking up nearly 700 half hour shows, nearly all of which are available on mp3 and based upon what I've heard so far nearly all of which are well worth listening to as well.


Michael Winner is probably best known for his revenge-themed films, such as "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land", but he is equally gifted as a director of occult Horror cinema, as "The Sentinel" of 1977 proves. "The Sentinel", which is based on a novel by John Konvitz, who also wrote the screenplay, is a clever and immensely creepy religious chiller that no lover of occult Horror should consider missing. The film is obviously inspired by successful occult classics such as "Rosemary's Baby", "The Exorcist" or "The Omen", but, as far as I am concerned, it is also easily as unsettling as these more widely acclaimed films, and probably even creepier.Allison Parker (Christina Raines) is a beautiful young New York model. Traumatized by events in her her past and not yet willing to marry her lawyer boyfriend (Chris Sarandon), Allison is in search for an apartment, and finds a big, incredibly nice one, which is also affordable, in an old mansion in Brooklyn. The new apartment, however, comes along with a bunch of very strange other tenants. And the sinister new neighbors soon become more than a little bothersome to Alice... This may not be an adequate plot synopsis, but I would hate to spoil any of this film's great moments, so I will not give any further plot description. What I will say, however, is that "The Sentinel" is a very creepy and effective film that profits from a great cast as well as an often bizarre and constantly uncanny atmosphere. The fact that director Michael Winner and writer John Konnvitz also acted as producers here certainly had its influence on the outcome. The film is imaginatively photographed, and the eerie old Brooklyn mansion is a fantastic setting for this kind of film. As mentioned above, the atmosphere is obscure and creepy, and the film also includes several shock-moments and genuine scares. The film features many sinister and eccentric characters, and the cast is superb. Beautiful Christina Raines is great in her role of Allison Parker, lovable and yet on the cusp to losing her mind. Chris Sarandon is also very good as her boyfriend, a successful lawyer, and the supporting cast includes many big names, such as Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger, before becoming really famous. The cast also includes stars like Ava Gardner, Horror icon John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, and, my personal favorite, the great Eli Wallach as a cynical homicide detective. I've been a great fan of director Michael Winner for a long time, mostly for films like "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land". "The Sentinel" is yet another great film in Winner's repertoire, and also the proof that the man is not only a master of hard-boiled revenge-cinema, but also of atmospheric occult Horror. All in all, "The Sentinel" is a creepy, intelligent, and amazingly bizarre occult chiller that is highly recommended to all Horror fans!


Interesting story about a soldier in a war who misses out on saving the life of a young girl from the enemy and is haunted by this event, even though he did save many other captive children. The film flashes a head and this soldier is now a teacher in a high school that is managed mostly by policemen patrolling the hallways, bathrooms and even class rooms. In other words, the High School is a prison and most of the kids pay very little attention to their teachers or principal. Dolph Lundgren,(Sam Decker) plays the soldier/school teacher and decides he is going to quit teaching and go into another field. However, the principal asks him to have a Detention Class as his last duty as a teacher. It is at this point in the film when all Hell breaks loose and the story becomes a complete BOMB. Try to enjoy it, if you decided to View IT !


The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.


I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!


I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.Recommended.


so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.


Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.I was actually shouting at the telly " they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first ", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid.


This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.


Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)


What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! "Revenge is a two way street" seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption!


Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season!


OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.


The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!!


The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway).


Not that many films have truly exploited the fear of going to the dentist that many people have. Those in the profession have some genuinely intimidating looking instruments. Give writers Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon, and Charles Finch for deriving maximum make-you- squirm-in-your-seat shock value from their premise.Corbin Bernsen, in a nicely nuanced performance, is Alan Feinstone, dedicated dentist whose train jumps off the tracks early on. An unbalanced obsessive-compulsive, he starts dwelling on thoughts of decay, even imagining it where there isn't any, and also equating decay with corruption of society in general. Having witnessed his unfaithful wife Brooke (Linda Hoffman) getting it on with their pool boy, he determines to punish her. At the same time, he's under pressure from a smarmy I.R.S. agent (Earl Boen, best known as Dr. Silberman from the "Terminator" franchise) to do a favor in exchange for the agent keeping his mouth shut about Feinstone's financial affairs. Feinstone starts to perceive everybody around him as decayed in one way or another, and he goes on a murder spree as police detective Gibbs (the always welcome Ken Foree) picks up his trail.Director Brian Yuzna clearly has great fun with the script. It allows for some genuinely nasty and remarkably entertaining gore scenes that do just as well as creating sympathy for the victims as thrilling the audience. The script gives the Feinstone character some fine lines of dialog and is overall quite sly and amusing, with large doses of pitch-black humor (such as Feinstone ordering a victim to "get their tongue out of the way!"). Brooke and the I.R.S. agent figure in particularly effective torture scenes. The makeup effects are for the most part quite good. And the film does a fine job of maintaining its forward momentum, as Feinstone, with his relentless drive for perfection, switches from respected professional to unhinged killer in record time.Foree, always cool and fun to watch, is rather wasted in a standard-issue detective role, but there's some enjoyment in watching Boen play his slimeball part to the hilt. Hoffman and Christa Sauls provide very appealing eye candy. And a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo can be seen in a small supporting role. But this is all very much Bernsen's show as he sinks his teeth (pardon me for using that expression) into his plum leading part with total conviction."The Dentist" ranks as one of the more original and interesting horror films to come out of the 1990's.8/10


This is a strange, cerebral, surreal, esoteric film. If there is such a thing as "intellectual horror" cinema, this film is it. I started to get scared and wish there was someone else watching it with me, and it barely has a plot! I'm going to have to see this film again multiple times before I feel I really understand it. If you're the kind of person who likes "My Dinner With Andre" and films by Godard, or if you do a lot of mind-altering drugs, you will probably enjoy this film. Wow.


Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!


I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.


Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.King has his usual cameo as the minister.Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).4/10


Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal. The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card. In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.


These are excerpts from a nine-page "Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out): "...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the "theme"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to "Please Don't Kiss Me" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as "Disney". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a "falling down" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny "dramatic" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, "I want you to kill him." This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. "Please Don't Kiss Me" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to "Please Don't Kiss Me"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture."All of these edits from Orson were ignored


Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger"). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's "Family Affair"), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from ****


Well then, thank you SO MUCH Disney for DESTROYING the fond memories I USED to have of my FORMER favorite movie. I was about 5 when the original movie came out, and it was one of the first movies I remember seeing. So, now that I'm 16, and feeling masochistic enough, I decided to rent this movie. Thus, I managed to poison all my memories of the original movie with this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie takes everything that made the original endearing and wrecks it, right down to the last detail.In this movie, Ariel and Eric celebrate the birth of their daughter, Melody, and go to show her to everyone in the ocean...BROADWAY STYLE! After the musical number ends, within minutes, the sea witch Morgana shows up and threatens to kill Melody if Triton doesn't give up the trident. Thus, he gives it up without even a fight. Eric stands there gaping, though Ariel figures out how to use a sword and save Melody. Morgana escapes, so Ariel and Eric decide that Melody should never go near the sea until Morgana is caught.Well...uh, nothing of note really happens. Eric is a total wuss. He never really manages to do anything. Ariel sort of does something. Melody manages to screw things up. Plus, the animation is a new low-point for Disney. The computer graphics wind up clashing with the backgrounds. Ever single opportunity for character development is wasted. The songs bite.Look, don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure even the little kids are going to be bored out of their skulls with this, since nothing even remotely exciting ever happens. They won't want to sing the songs. If you manage to grab a copy of this, throw it out into the ocean and hope that nobody ever finds it. Ever.


I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .


Outrageously trashy karate/horror thriller with loads of graphically gory violence and gratuitous nudity, and a thoroughly preposterous and bizarre "plot". This is lowbrow and low-grade entertainment that will appeal only to viewers with particularly kinky tastes, but it's kind of cheerfully bad and I must admit that I wasn't actually bored while watching it.... (*1/2)


After being sent to prison for no less then 10 nor more then 40 years for being busted with drugs and refusing to give up her accomplishes, Jackie (Erica Gavin of Russ Meyer's "Vixen" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", in her last film role) has to get accustomed to life in the big 'doll' house, or at least try to, in this early film by Jonathan Demme. Due to it's tawdry nature and sheer watchability, I would also rank this as one of his best films, right below "Silence of the Lambs" and "Stop Making Sense", but so far above any of his other movies. This minor classic is just campy, sleazy, and fun enough to be an amazingly good guilty pleasure and thankfully never once goes overboard into all out parody of the Women In Prison genre. It ALMOST washed out the rancid bad taste of the ludicrously preachy "Philidelphia" from my mouth. However, the film is not without it's downfalls (the 'un'talent show is a HUGE chore to sit through and goes on far too long, Barbera Steele is sadly wasted, among other small things) But don't let those gripes stop you from watching an otherwise enjoyable movie.My Grade: B- DVD Extras: 5 minute Roger Corman interview; Cast & crew Bios; Original Trailer; and Trailers for "Candy Stripe Nurses" (with nudity), "Big Bad Mama 2", "Big Doll House" (with nudity), & "Crazy Mama" Eye Candy: Juanita Brown, Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith, Erica Gavin, Roberta Collins, Ella Reid, Lynda Gold, and some others all show skin


All dogs go to Heaven is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I first saw it when I was like 3. Now I'm 12 and I rented it, it makes me think of things and it brings back so many memories, those were "the days". I love the music, I love when Charlie is arriving in Heaven, I love the song "Let me be surprised". I love how Charlie looks and his voice, Bert Reynolds could only play Charlie's voice this great. I love this movie, the 1st one is the best one because it's so original and great. It really does bring back memories that no one can describe, not even me. If only I could go back to those days. I love the characters. If this is the way the memories come back when I'm 12 imagine how I'll feel when I'm like 19, I hope I'll be able to watch this when I'm older. When I first seen this I never knew that I would really look back on it and feel this way , I hope it will be available to watch. I'm so happy that this movie was made and the amazing idea came to mind and heart. On a scale from 1-10 I'd give it a perfect 10. It's an amazing movie. It's so hard to explain the feeling, when I get older and if I have kids, I hope they can experience this feeling.


The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".


I have no idea how to describe this movie, and also would love to provide others the same opportunity I had - seeing it with no prior knowledge of what to expect. I enjoyed it immensely but can also say I barely understood what was going on, if in fact there was anything to understand in the first place. Fans of David Lynch (tangentially) or especially Guy Maddin films should particularly enjoy this, and any fans of the comic book EIGHTBALL will probably be beside themselves with joy and wonder (it came as close as any film I've seen to the tone and mood Dan Clowes creates so effectively).One slight note just to warn anyone easily offended - this movie, if rated, would be NC-17 for sure. Fans of male full-frontal nudity, however...hmm, well...yes. This is weird wild stuff.


They should have called this movie: "Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk. In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.


This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre


The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.


I was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying "I want to feel human again," and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him "feel human". I wish I could "feel human" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said "free". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still...


Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10.


This light hearted comedy should be enjoyed for entertainment value. It gets quite hysterically funny at times, but if you haven't spent any time on 'that' side of the tracks you will miss the comedy when it erupts.The cast of characters meld well together and are quite believable in their roles. How Grace handles meeting her dead husbands girlfriend was well played. She's a true lady. And, my favorite is Grace's white pimp suit that she wears.I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to laugh out loud, who cheers for the underdog or just wishes to watch something different.


I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.


Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...


From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.My Grade: D-


Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.


You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk. As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.


As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.


Barbara Stanwyck plays Lily Powers. She's a waitress for her father's speakeasy in a little crummy mining town. He also sells her to men. She escapes to New York and literally sleeps her way to the top.Originally I had only seen the 71 minute version but it's pretty extreme--for its time. Nowadays it's pretty tame. The movie moves very quickly and has tons of sexual innuendo--some of it comes off as pretty silly (but fun) today. It moves so quickly you can easily ignore that most of it could never happen--even in 1933. There's nothing classic or monumental about this--it's just a quick, gleefully dirty little film that's lots of fun. It only falls apart at the end with a little "moral" ending that the censors demanded. It comes across as unbelievable and stupid (I saw it in a theatre and the audience laughed at it--one guy quite rightfully said "No way") I just saw the uncut 75 minute version which has a different, somewhat tragic and MUCH better ending. This version was thought to be lost until 2004 when it was discovered by mistake! I believe this is the only one in release--but be aware. The acting is good--Stanwyck jumps into her role and plays it WAY over the top. She makes you believe that she enjoys being cruel and sleeping around. There are also strong supporting performances from handsome Donald Cook and George Brent. Also look for a pre-stardom John Wayne in a hilarious bit as a meek and mild office worker! Fun, dirty and fast. I give this a 9.


IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote "character?") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall.


this movie was just plain dumb i do not think it was scary at all i went in hoping to be shocked and scared but was mostly laughing some of the scenes were just to fake and thrown together blood scenes were extremely over cg and some of the mutants were ridiculously gay looking it also sucked because the acting was just plain horrible u think they could get some good actors and most of the characters i hated just because how stupid and lame they acted even though they were supposed to be in the military i get to watch movies for free and seen many people walking out im guessing because it was so dumb kinda glad i didn't have to pay for it in short DUMB ASS MOVIE don't see it...but then again thats my opinion


I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring! A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic.


Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.


There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on "Carry On Follow that Camel" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with "conventional" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is "trouble", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered "wunderbar" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting.


I'm a nice guy, and I like to think of myself as genre-tolerant. And, I guess by that, I mean I try to consider a movie in the context of the genre that it resides in. If nothing else, that saves me from feeling like I should be saying really nasty things about people or films, which I don't like doing.The plot in this one was patently obvious, the production values very low and sets, uhm, simplistic. The acting rose into "good for a high school play" territory from time to time. My feeling was this was filmed in a day -- please tell me it was.Worst of all, the sex , while reasonably plentiful, was fairly mundane, hampered by, at least in my copy, a "sound-over" that was inconsistent with the action (climatic moans and shrieks while lying on a bed undoing a bra???). There was definitely no "edge" to it at all--nothing distinguishing or interesting, and with surprisingly quick cuts.My vote is a "1" then, with the following summary statement: would have been better if the filler stripper material at the club was expanded, and the rest of the movie condensed.


I find it so amazing that even after all these years, we are STILL talking about this movie! Obviously this movie wasn't THAT bad or else people wouldn't even BOTHER to talk about it. I personally enjoyed this film immensly, and still do! I guess this film isn't for everyone, but it certainly did touch the hearts of many. As for those that think that this film is "overrated" or "over-hyped"...well, we only have the movie-going public to thank for that! lol* You see, it's not CRITICS/article writers that make a film "HUGE" or a "HIT" with the general movie-going public. PEOPLE make the film a huge success. With Titanic, everyone was in awe. Let's face it, a film like this had never been made before. At least not with the type of special effects needed to really capture the essence of the ship actually sinking. This film is so accurate that even James Cameron timed the actual sinking of the ship in the film with the REAL sinking that fateful day in April 1912. Even the silverware for goodness sakes matched! Give this movie a break you guys! The critics thought this movie would sink BIG time! When this movie actually came out and people started hearing by WORD OF MOUTH (which is the BEST form of advertisement mind you) that this was a good/decent/movie worth seeing, then everyone started flocking to the theaters in droves to see this movie...not once, not twice, but maybe 3 times and more! So, I really wouldn't say that this movie was "overhyped"...at least not like the buildup for the MATRIX reloaded or the HULK is being "overhyped". ha! Critics didn't even think that Titanic would make enough money to cover Cameron's gigantic film budget that it took to make this mammoth of a film. However, the films money took care of that 200 million budget and MUCH more! Personally, I LOVE this film. However, this film might not be for everyone. DOn't say that this film sucks just because of romance though! THat is the most sexist thing I've ever heard! Disliking a movie just because it has romance in it! The story was sweet. The dialogue could have been better, but let's face it...the REAL star of the movie wasn't Leo or Kate...it was that GIGANTIC Ship! I think all of the actors including DiCaprio and Winslet did a fine job. It's not thier best work (I've seen much BETTER work from both of them) but it wasn't the WORST I've seen on screen before. Give them a break!


I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences.


The trouble with the book, "Memoirs of a Geisha" is that it had Japanese surfaces but underneath the surfaces it was all an American man's way of thinking. Reading the book is like watching a magnificent ballet with great music, sets, and costumes yet performed by barnyard animals dressed in those costumesso far from Japanese ways of thinking were the characters.The movie isn't about Japan or real geisha. It is a story about a few American men's mistaken ideas about Japan and geisha filtered through their own ignorance and misconceptions. So what is this movie if it isn't about Japan or geisha? Is it pure fantasy as so many people have said? Yes, but then why make it into an American fantasy?There were so many missed opportunities. Imagine a culture where there are no puritanical hang-ups, no connotations of sin about sex. Sex is natural and normal. How is sex handled in this movie? Right. Like it was dirty. The closest thing to a sex scene in the movie has Sayuri wrinkling up her nose and grimacing with distaste for five seconds as if the man trying to mount her had dropped a handful of cockroaches on her crotch. Does anyone actually enjoy sex in this movie? Nope. One character is said to be promiscuous but all we see is her pushing away her lover because it looks like she doesn't want to get caught doing something dirty. Such typical American puritanism has no place in a movie about Japanese geisha.Did Sayuri enjoy her first ravishing by some old codger after her cherry was auctioned off? Nope. She lies there like a cold slab of meat on a chopping block. Of course she isn't supposed to enjoy it. And that is what I mean about this movie. Why couldn't they have given her something to enjoy? Why does all the sex have to be sinful and wrong?Behind Mameha the Chairman was Sayuri's secret patron, and as such he was behind the auction of her virginity. He could have rigged the auction and won her himself. Nobu didn't even bid. So why did the Chairman let that old codger win her and, reeking of old-man stink, get his fingers all over her naked body? Would any woman ever really forgive a man for that?Let's try to make sense of this. By being behind Mameha the Chairman incurred debts for Sayuri's geisha training. In order to recoup his debts the Chairman had Sayuri sold to Dr. Crab. Through Mameha the Chairman sold Sayuri's sexual favors to that old geezer so that the Chairman could make some money out of her. The Chairman wasn't her patron. He was her pimp! Some romantic love story.Yes, the film is gorgeous but it is like the beauty of a very attractive, alluring transvestite whose voice, appearance and every touch are thrilling. But under that very feminine surface lies an ominous secret. Under the incorrectly appearing Japanese surface of the film lurks the ominous secret that the heart, soul, spirit and core of this film is entirely American and male. Not the best thing to be if it is trying to be other than a lie, distortion, and terribly wrong.Some contrasts between Japan and MOAG:Japanese style  Refined, elegant simplicity. MOAG style  Peking Opera.Japanese geisha  Hair swept up. MOAG geisha  Loose hair which surely must have gotten all gunked up in the thick paste of white makeup.Japanese shaved ice - Japanese are rather strict about seasonal observances. Shaved ice is strictly a summer treat. MOAG shaved ice - The Chairman buys Chiyo, the young Sayuri played by the marvelous Suzuka Ohgo, this treat during cherry-blossom-viewing season. The thought made my entire body shiver with cold.Japanese geisha  Trained and skilled entertainers. MOAG geisha - sluts.Japanese wind chime - Used in the summer because hearing the sound it makes, thanks to the breeze, Japanese people feel somehow cooler. MOAG wind chime - a door bell! If a person stood in front of another's house and made noises with a wind chime they would be considered a lunatic, not gain entrance.Japan  Emphasis on human relationships, group oriented. MOAG  "I want a life that's mine" American individualism.Japanese traditional dance  Refined elegance. An almost geometrical and mechanical precision. MOAG dance  Martha Graham freaking out on LSD while wearing a not-very-auspicious white Japanese funeral shroud. Performed by a geisha down a ramp in a place that looks like a strip club? Ha ha ha! Is a strip club where they did most of their research on geisha?Japan house fire  Setting or even letting a fire break out is worse than murder because it poses such a dire threat to the community. Fires can rip through those wooden villages, towns, and cities destroying hundreds or thousands of homes and killing as many people. MOAG house fire - Great adjunct to a fight scene but there are zero ramifications and because it is no longer needed the out-of-control fire miraculously puts itself out. Technically the movie ended here because at the very least Sayuri would have been ostracized and joined her sister among those never heard from again. Which is where both Arthur Golden and Rob Marshall should be exiled.Enough. The movie stinks.


Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again.


This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all.


I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!


A fantastic show and an unrealized classic; The League of Gentlemen remains as one of the greatest modern comedies of recent times.With a dark and bizarre style of humor that towers over the tired, formulaic approach of it's inferior, yet unfortunately far more acknowledged successor, Little Britain, The League of Gentlemen was truly something special during a rather quiet era in British comedy.Up until it's arrival on the scene, there had never really been anything like The League of Gentlemen before. On the surface, a seemingly simplistic sketch show, the show soon unfolds as a vivid, sinister but incredibly hilarious universe populated with all manner of brilliant comedic creations. What really sets the show apart from it's rivals, is it's approach to telling us it's story. Rather than serve us re-hashed sketches, barely distinguishable from the next, here we see each individual or group of characters go through their various journeys and story lines. No visit to them is the same, and each time they offer us up with a surprise.Gradually, over three series' and a Christmas special, the fictional town of Royston Vasey is heaving with a grotesque yet hilarious populace. And that's probably the main reason why the show is such a joy to watch (and also the reason why the show would easily merit more series') Unlike other current shows like The Catherine Tate Show or more importantly Little Britain, the League both know when a character has run it's course, and have the opportunity to deal with that. Several fan favorite's, who could have easily been kept on to entertain further, bowed out before the series came to a close, giving room for fellow characters to grow more, or allow for the introduction of newer residents of Royston Vasey to make their mark.Another thing that sets this show above others is that the writing team approach the script process with care and intelligence. As mentioned before, all four members of the League have a sound mind when it comes to judging the longevity of their creations, and when it's time to call it quits in respect to certain characters. This awareness has also meant The League of Gentlemen undergoes a bold evolution, not usually seen in a show of this nature. The narrative driven, and far darker third series is a brave step away from the more sketch based first two series' and this bold move by the League really pays off. With the third series, there's less of an urgency for them to please an audience, and like the Christmas special, they pursue individual stories with a clear narrative, unlike the more sketch-based previous series' that (succesfully) binded together various sets of sketches into a series' long story arc.The third series is both a refreshing change of pace of style, as well as a real treat for fans who've already seen the first two. Despite some polarized opinion on the third series, any real fan of the League will appreciate what the third series has to offer, as well as really enjoy the more character based episodes, that only delve deeper into fan favorite's, but pair up and inter-wine characters that might not have crossed paths previously.It might take a little trying to get into the change in style, but it's definitely worth it, and in my opinion, the third series is the best and also provides a firm conclusion to the series.The show's not without it's drawbacks, and very occasionally certain characters and set pieces appear somewhat out of place, but for the most part, the genius writing, dark nature of the show and the host of brilliant characters (that are often all too close to real life) make for a real treat and prove what comedy should be about and puts much of the more recent, catch phrase driven and often desperate attempts at comedy to shame


Not a `woman film' but film for the gang. One of the worst films ever made by a male director about woman. Director Andy McKay simply doesn't know woman. Peaks of bad taste, American Pie's humor style, crude story, no sense, groundless story, refuted characters. Vulgar fantasies came to life on screen. Insulting and definitely not funny. I wonder how three good actresses accepted to take part in it.


Hey,If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!


I loved this movie. I totally disagree with some (negative) critiques that I've read over the years. This was a great vehicle for Eddie Murphy! He appeared to have a great time with his part as Chandler Jarrell and he should never care about what the critics say, if he had fun doing it  and most of his audience enjoyed it! And, it WAS fun to watch as it combined some great fantasy tension with Mr. Murphy's great comedic style. You have to keep in mind that 'Golden Child' is a 'fantasy' film  just an imaginative work of magic and wonder amidst the 'real' world. During the time this film was released, I was working in a video rental store. This was one of the most popular with all our customers. Every single time, we put this one up on our monitor, ALL the copies we had went out fast with wait-list requests that kept it on the queue for months! Everyone who rented it loved it! I was the resident film critic and all my regular customers would ask my opinion before they rented  this was one of my favorites and I knew the taste of my customers so I highly recommended this one to most of them. I really feel that this film is a Sleeper  it may not have done too well at the box office  due to very poor marketing  but it hit a high in the video rental and purchase market later! (YES, I did buy this film for my own video library!). I adored the little boy who played the 'Golden Child'  J. L. Reate - but after looking at his profile in IMDb, I noticed that he never did any more films. That is sad, because he definitely had an on-screen aura and could have continued with a film career. I also adored Victor Wong, who played the Old Man (I LOVED him in his part as 'Egg Shen' in 'Big Trouble in Little China' - 1986). At any rate, this was a great film. The only drawbacks that didn't seem to fit with the theme were some of the parts that got a bit more 'adult' in nature  such as 'Chandler's rather sexual remarks about the serpent lady that was presented to him as a silhouette. It was funny, but it still was out of sync. OK, so there were a few suggestive gratuitous scenes  those were put in for the mind-set of the day perhaps. This was still an adventurous and escapist type of film which we do need today to get away from all the hard core reality and depressing fluff that we are hit with from Hollywood. Now that's Entertainment!


The premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...


I know, I know: it's childish. But I just love this type of movie. A bird that suffered a lot of "mishaps" and still hasn't lost his faith in humanity and his sense of humor. What's special about this film is the fact that the main character is Paulie -the parrot- and he's not used as a boost to some hotshot human actor. Furthermore I like the storyline: Paulie tells his lifestory to a cleaner at the point he hit rock bottom. (By the way: Jay Mohr's voice almost sounds like Joe Pesci's!). And Cheech Marin of course, the man IS humor to me. Ever since I saw "Up in Smoke" I have appreciated his naive way of performing, making a simple situation a hilarious one.. can't help myself.


Another Woo's masterpiece!This is a best wuxie film i'm ever seen! Woo - RULEZ forever (except some Hollywood moments...). John Woo - greater director of the century.Maybe hi is not more intellectual than lot of Big Directors... But he is lyrical and spiritual idol of all free-mind people! His movies like the great poetry! Woo is a Movie Sheakspeare! Woo is a Movie Biron! Woo is a Mozart of Bloodshet!!!!IMHO violent in Woo films is not a directors bloodlust, but a instrument of art. Themes of Woo movies is more humanistic that more of the new films.


An interesting look at Japan prior to opening to the West. John Wayne as America's first consul to Japan arrives in accordance with agreements resulting from Perry's gunboat diplomacy. He is not welcome. Wayne eventually wins his meeting with the Shogun after bring a cholera epidemic, introduced by an American ship, under control. There follows a colorful procession to the capital bearing gifts for the Shogun, including a bottle of Old Tanglefoot. The meeting with the Shogun, the debates among the Japanese nobles and an assassination during an archery exhibit present an interesting look at the politics of the period. Altogether a rather enjoyable movie and besides how often do you get to see the Duke lose a fight to a guy half his size.


Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.


Off the blocks let me just say that I am a huge zombie fan so I don't make statements like the above lightly. Secondly let me say that this is an Italian zombie film and Fulci only directed 15 minutes of it before handing over to Bruno (Rats, Night Of Terror) Mattei. This is no Dawn of the Dead folks.That said this is easily one of the most entertaining zombie films I have ever seen. The script is wonderfully horrible. Just check out the two scientists trying to find an antidote ("Let's try putting these two molecules together"). The zombies come in all varieties. From moaning shufflers, to machete wielding maniacs, to birds! The gore is plentiful. Legs are bitten off, arms amputated, stomachs burst open. The pace is fast, flying from one zombie attack to the next. Then there's the head in the fridge. Oh the head in the fridge! One of the greatest moments in horror since Ash got his hand possessed in Evil Dead 2.You should know already whether you're the sort of person who's going to like this sort of film. Get some mates and some beer and you'll be in for a fun night.Did I mention the head in the fridge?!?!?


Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie.


The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow!


This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!


This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday.


When I first heard about "Down To Earth," I was pretty excited. I'm a pretty big fan a Chris Rock, he was especially hilarious in Dogma. But this film proved to be a disappointment. Chris Rock's performance was not nearly as good as his past performances, and the movie was just very badly directed as a whole.First off, Chris Rock. He plays the entire movie as a standup comedy routine. Obviously, this works fine in the scenes where he's supposed to be doing standup, but in the rest of the movie, it doesn't. Even when he's talking to one other character, he seems to think he's trying to make a roomful of people laugh. He has a few funny moments, but they mostly come during the standup scenes (no wonder they decided to make his character a comedian). As for the rest of the cast, they're pretty much there just to give Rock someone to talk to, none of them stand out.Also, the movie was poorly directed. The movie has basically a one-joke plot: old white guy acting like a young black comedian. While I prefer movies with more than one joke, this still could have worked, and been quite funny. The problem was, we saw too much of Rock and not enough of the old white guy. It's supposed to be funny because it's this white guy telling Chris Rock's jokes, but for most of the time, we just see Chris Rock, so it's not nearly as funny. The few scenes where they decide to show us the white guy talking like Rock are, in fact, hilarious. If he had been shown more, the movie would have been a lot funnier.Overall, a few moments of laughter can't make up for the fact that "Down To Earth" is poorly acted, and poorly directed. This one was a pretty big disappointment.Rating: 4/10


First and foremost, speaking as no fan of the genre, "The Bourne Ultimatum" is a breathtaking, virtuoso, superb action movie.Secondly, it is a silly malarky of cartoonish super-hero stuff.Thirdly, the film carries a complex, important point, about crime-fighters turning into criminals themselves. No reference is made to Abu Ghraib or the Executive Branch's outrageous domestic assaults on constitutional rights, none is necessary.So, the latest in the "Bourne" series, in the hands of Paul Greengrass (of the 2004 "Bourne Supremacy" and last year's "United 93"), is a significant achievement, perhaps held back but not actually diminished by the unavoidable excesses of the genre."Breathtaking" above is meant both as a complimentary adjective and a description of the physical sensation: for more than an hour from the first frame, the viewer seemingly holds his breath, pushed back against the chair by the force of relentless, globe-trotting, utterly suspenseful action. There is no letup, no variation in the rhythm and pull of the film, and yet it never becomes monotonous and tiresome the way some kindred music videos do after just a couple of minutes.Oliver Wood's in-your-face cinematography is making the best of Tony Gilroy's screenplay from Robert Ludlum's 1990 novel (which doesn't stack up well against the "Bourne Identity," written a decade earlier).Matt Damon is once again the inevitable, irreplaceable Bourne, the deadliest of fantasy CIA agents, this time taking on the entire agency in search of his identity, his past, and the mysterious agency program that has turned him into a killing machine. Nothing like his quietly heroic Edward R. Murrow, the always-marvelous David Strathairn is the nasty top agency official, pitched against Bourne in trying to hide some illegal "take-no-prisoners" policies and brutal procedures.Joan Allen plays what appears to be the Good Cop against Strathairn's Bad One. And, there is Julia Stiles as the agent once again coming to Bourne's aid; a combination of Greengrass' direction and Stiles acting results in a surprising impact by a mostly silent character, her lack of communication and blank expression more intriguing than miles of dialogue.So good is "The Bourne Ultimatum" that it gets away with the old one-man-against-the-world bit, this time stretched to ridiculous excesses, as Bourne defies constraints of geography, time, gravity... and physics in general. (Can you fly backwards with a car from the top of a building? Why not - it looks great.) All this "real-world" magic - leaping from country to country in seconds, to arrive at some unknown location exactly as, when, and how needed - outdoes special-effect and superhero cartoon improbabilities. And yet, only a clueless pedant would allow "facts" interfere with the entertainment-based ecstasy of the Bourne fantasy.


Well, I would consider Police Story as one of Jackie Chan's best film. The plot, the fighting scenes and the stunt works are excellent. In this film, Jackie himself acted as a police officer called Chan Ka Kui (Kevin Chan in some versions) who successfully arrested a crime lord. After the crime lord was released due to lack of evidence , he framed Chan for the killing of a police officer. Due to this, he became wanted by the police. Later on, Salina (Brigitte Lin), who was the secretary of the crime lord, went to a shopping mall and started to steal the evidence of the crime lord's crimes from his computer and preparing to pass them to Chan. However, the crime lord knew that Salina had downloaded his incriminating data and hired his henchmen to capture her. Later on, Chan appeared at the scenes and began to fight all of the henchmen, defeating them one by one. At the last scene, Chan was seen punching the crime lord. Lastly, this is the best action and comedy movie. Everyone should watch it. Highly recommended.


In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.


DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is " look after each other and keep talking "


Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic.