I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV


When this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip this one!


'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.


This movie is an awesome non-stop laugh riot incorporating all the usual ingredients of a Dawid Dhawan comedy - bumbling heroes , buffoonish supporting characters , made-up dolls for heroines , nasty villains , wisecracks , rocking soundtrack + choreography and a little dose of action . Amitabh Bachchan and Govinda both are in double roles of policemen and conmen . The heroine of Amitabh the cop is Ramya Krishnan and Raveena is opposite Govinda the cop . Heroines are mere rouge-smothered props as usual . The conmen have no heroines . Paresh Rawal carries his villainous act in DAUD forward (He played a similar Don in KHOOBSURAT too) . Asrani shines in a brief role . He does a retake on his famous "Angrezon ke zamaane ke Jailer" act in SHOLAY .Govinda is impeccable as usual - as a wisecracking , good-humoured policeman Pyaare Mohan and as a conman Chhote Miyaan . He imitates Bihari style of Hindi speaking with hilarious results . Amitabh Bachchan , believe it or not , pales in comparison with him . But still AB is fine . Madhuri Dixit does a cameo as herself in the song "Makhna" . She dances like wind . Viju Shah's music is awesome . Check out "Kisi Disco Mein Jaayen" , "Makhna" and the title track .Do not go looking for any LOGIC since it is a comedy and the screenplay is of convenience completely . Just Enjoy Yourself .


(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...) Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper! It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!


This game was made by Sega. Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either. For starters the camera angles work against you in this game. The motorcycle is your means of getting around. The motorcycle is the worst part in the game. Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move. You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter. The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him. The graphics are horrible. You ride through trees on your bike. The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible. This game wouldn't even be worth renting.


I think this movie is well done and realistic. I you are used to watching Hollywood "action" movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is much closer to real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what lifts it above the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the "making of" extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any mistakes. This is a movie i will recommend for others to watch. High quality realistic story and movie.


Japan is in serious trouble. Demons have infested Edo, taking possession of earthly forms and bending them to their unholy will. On top of that, the rebirth of Ashura, Queen of the demons, is nigh. The only thing that stands against this grave threat are the Demon Wardens, a fearsome group of warriors, who might just be as bad as the demons themselves.Izumo is a retired Demon Warden, who five years ago, took up theater instead of Demon Slaying after accidentally killing a innocent child (In a battle that's strangely reminiscent of the bar scene from Dusk till Dawn). One night by a chance encounter he meets a beautiful and mysterious woman named Tsubaki. Their fortunes intertwine (literally) and they are bound by fate to be lovers and enemies.If you think this sounds like your typical Japanese Fantasy/Swordplay epic, you'd be wrong. In fact, there's nothing typical about Ashura. It is a hodge-podge of many different genre's of film. Those just mentioned, as well as a comedy, drama, and romance. Director Yojiro Takita (Onmyoji) juggles the genre's fairly respectfully (Although, the comedy seems forced in some scenes) and the end result is a ridiculous, but really fun popcorn movie.To be sure, there are flaws in the film. Some of the humor seems contrived, and out of place. And the acting isn't the greatest. But seriously, do you watch Fantasy/Swordplay/Comedy films for the great acting performances?? No, we watch them for the action and the crazy CG visuals, all of which Ashura has in Spades. Not to be misleading, the film is not all action, but it is spaced out generously enough with lots of swordplay and buckets of green blood to keep the average viewer happy.Bottom line; the films has it's faults and is not a martial arts epic, but it doesn't try to be and it features interesting visuals and good swordplay action. The reason the film worked for me is that it never takes itself too seriously and if the viewer does the same, their sure to be delighted by this fun and silly swordplay fantasy action flick.My Rating 7 out of 10. Fun popcorn movie.


"The Groove Tube" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany "Modern Problems". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after "Modern Problems" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus "Tunnelvision" and "Kentucky Fried Movie" (although I might also include "The Truman Show"). Really funny.I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro.


In Iran women are prohibited from attending live sporting events because of the fear that they will be "corrupted" by bad language, close proximity to thousands of men, and the fact that there are no toilet facilities for women in the antiquated stadiums. Based on an actual incident involving the daughter of the director, Jafar Panahi's Offside follows six girls, disguised as men, who are refused entry into the soccer match in 2005 between Iran and Bahrain, a match that will decide whether or not Iran goes to the World Cup. In a departure from the bleak, minimalist films we have been accustomed to from Iran over the last ten years, Offside is an exuberant comedy that has a patriotic fervor and a universal appeal but contains enough subversive social commentary to warrant its prohibition from screenings in Iran.Shot with a digital camera using non-professional actors who are more than up to the task, the girls try to sneak into Azadi Stadium in Tehran but are arrested and placed in a holding area outside of the stadium. They are guarded by three young army conscripts (Safdar Samandar, Mohammed Kheir-abadi, and Masoud Kheymeh-kaboud) who express ambivalence about their task but are pledged to follow the rules. The women are soccer enthusiasts, not political activists and cheer for Iran's victory but this does not deter the soldiers from detaining them while they wait for the girls to be transported to the Vice Squad and an uncertain future.Outspoken rather than acting like victims, they continually question the soldiers about the rationale behind the restrictions, making their absurdity quite obvious. Although they can hear the crowd noise, the women cannot see the action but achieve a minor victory when they persuade one of the soldiers to provide a running commentary on the game. One of the funniest sequences takes place when a female "prisoner" is escorted to the men's room by a soldier. The young recruit then must cope with a near riot when he has to prevent anyone else from using the facilities while the girl is still inside.Little by little, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, that which unites them turns out to be greater than that which divides them and the unlikely antagonists rally behind their country and root for the victory that will send Iran to the World Cup. Although the point is made early and often and the film sags a bit in the middle, Offside makes a telling point about a society where a political elite with a medieval social mentality has to contend with an growing group of educated and politically astute citizens. One can only hope that world pressure and the awakening of its own people will force the Ayatollahs to come to terms with the 21st century.


Why did this movie fail commercially? It's got a sharp script (by Ron Shelton) and great performances by Kurt Russell and, especially, Robin Williams, in a brilliant manic nerd turn that's different from any of his other work. A great renter.


A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity.


The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life."The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.


Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.


"Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are: A rigid patriarch his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father) his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch. Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera".


I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed. This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud. It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small.


When "Girlfight" came out, the reviews praised it, but I didn't get around to seeing it. I finally saw it when it got released on video, and understand the glowing reviews.The movie opens in a high school in the middle of a ghetto. We quickly get introduced to student Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez). She has a bad-ass expression on her face, and any idea about Diana that we might derive from this expression soon gets corroborated when she gets in a fight. As Diana gets in trouble for this, we then meet her father, an aggressive type in his own right; clearly we can't totally blame Diana for her attitude.But then the movie really picks up, as a new thought germinates in Diana's mind: boxing as a way to escape this grim existence. Her older brother has already gotten into boxing, but her father most likely won't approve. Only Diana herself can decide what to do.Just the first few minutes alone identified that I was in for a very gritty, non-Hollywood movie, but the brief appearance of John Sayles in a supporting role truly affirmed that. Even before they get to any boxing scenes, you feel like you're getting pounded in the face at seeing the ugly life that Diana lives. And when they finally arrive at the film's main story, there's no turning back.All in all, I definitely recommend this movie. I will admit that using boxing as a means to show someone trying to make something of himself/herself has been sort of a cliché in cinema for many years ("Rocky", "Million Dollar Baby"), but I still think that they did a great job with it here. In fact, this may have brought the genre to its apex. Really good. Too bad that Michelle Rodriguez wasted herself in Hollywood movies after this one.


Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster "


I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-) Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....?


Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.


There are some elements that save this movie from being a total catastrophe, but are overshadowed with bad acting, plot holes, deus ex machina thrown ins, stupid dialogs, weak script, and predictable clichés...What we have here is a horror movie with a storyline that goes nowhere for most of the time. A group of unlikely heroes including a black guy that gets it first (yeah, that cliché seems to be still very much alive even in Finland), seem to have trouble trying to exit a mysteriously empty hospital. There are shrieking ghosts (very imaginative), zombies (at one point I thought at least they didn't use zombies, but they came), and Finnish glam-rock band with demonic make-up on, getting in their way. There is also some time-shift doodle present, but it adds up nothing to the storyline. Autistic girl and a hobo seem to have some deeper understanding of a situation, but they never spell it out to the viewer, or their confused friends. Their lines consist only of profound life lesson thoughts like: "What happens will happen..." or "Light can't live in the darkness..." or the ominous "I need a red crayon... red crayon." So all this characters (including worried father and sweet doctor in distress types) end up doing is running around them dark floors, and from or mistakenly to the demons. Occasionally a ghost or a group of zombies show up, and if it seems a demon keyboardist can't spot a group of six people coming towards it, waving a flashlight and conversing, it was just pretending. And apparently this demon can break through walls without much hassle, but opening elevator door is beyond its capabilities.In the end we even get a "it was all a dream" sequence twist. Or maybe it wasn't. Oh, boy I wish this movie was, and that kind that makes time seem to move faster so it all plays out in just 10 minutes or so...


Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.


After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.Make sure and pay attention, as the "subtle" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she "normally" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays.


In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.


First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.


This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view.


I can't remember many details about the show, but i remember how passionate i was about it and how i was determined not to miss any episodes. Unfortunately at the time we had no VCR, so i haven't ever seen the series again. However i can remember strongly how i felt while watching it and how thrilled i was every time it came on. Sam Waterstone was my favorite actor these days (i think i was almost in love) and he remains one of my favorite actors to the day, mostly due to his appearance in the series. I would gladly buy/steal/download this series, i think i would go to great lengths in order to see it again and revisit a childhood long gone... Any ideas? Does anybody knows of a site devoted to the series or has the episodes on tape from their first airing?


This will be best known for the Ferrari that was crashed when Eddie Griffin was doing promotion.Tale of racing and betting is a poorly made by the numbers that appears to have a director who couldn't see the numbers. Largely a point and shoot affair with a group of actors in it for a paycheck. This is not a good movie, but its not bad enough to be watchable and end up as a some what nothing film isn't worth bothering with no matter how you look at it.Misogynistic, despite the fact one of the leads is a woman, this is a film that was clearly made just to get the producer and director close to pretty girls. Want evidence? There are long lingering shots of women in next to nothing that serve no purpose other than perhaps to get a rise out of people too afraid to rent a porno or the Sports illustrated swimsuit DVD.Avoid this movie at all costs


I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...


Being that I am a true product of the hip-hop and electronic dance music generation, this is without a doubt one of my favorite movies of all time. Beat Street, although not as "authentic" in some respects as Wild Style, is a film that is guaranteed to tug the heart strings of anyone who takes pride in the culture of urban sample/DJ-based music and electro-club culture.Although I will admit that at times the dialogue is somewhat cheesy, you can't help but feel for the characters, and ultimately "wish you were there" for the beginnings of hip-hop culture in New York City in the early eighties. The b-boy battle scene at the Roxy nightclub (a real-life, real-time competition between the legendary Rock Steady Crew and the NYC Breakers) is just as essential to a hip-hop fan's archives as any classic album. Watch some of the breakers' moves in slow-motion if possible to truly appreciate the athletic and stylistic expertise of a seasoned B-boy/B-girl. All praises due to the Zulu Nation!!!


I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans.


Like Ishtar and King of Comedy, other great, misunderstood comedies, Envy has great performances by two actors playing essentially, losers (may be too harsh a word, I will call them suburban under-achievers).This film was a dark comedy gem, and I'm not sure what people expect. I relish seeing a major studio comedy that isn't filled with obvious humor, and I believe that the small moments in this movie make it worthwhile. The look on Stiller's face when he sees the dog doo disappear for the first time captures a moment, a moment that most people should be able to recognize in themselves. Yes, it was a fairly simple story, but it examined the root of envy in a really interesting way. There were a lot of great scenes (the J-Man's decrepit "cabin by the lake", Corky's unceremonious burial, Weitz's wife role, and Walken's J-Man -- all great stuff.I can't stand people that get on IMDb and mercilessly trash films when they have absolutely no idea what it takes to make one. I will take Envy over almost any of the top ten grossing comedies of the year (save Napoleon Dynamite.) It's wittier, wackier, and an offbeat, enjoyable gem.Remember this people; Most times, Popular doesn't equal Good.


I understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: " this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent".....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris....


What this movie does well is combine action and horror with comedy and drama in a unique way that teases more emotion form the audience than a typical horror movie. Unfortunately with disjointed storytelling, frustrating plot-holes, and contradictory scenes this movie mainly caused me frustration and is hardly "the greatest monster movie ever." Let's start with the good stuff: comedy, acting and special effects. From the get-go, this movie starts off fast paced and cheeky. The opening scene - the monster's origin - is campy and quick, paying homage the the classic 'environmental' disasters that have given birth to so many other monsters. The pacing is fast, which was a welcome break from the long and often pointlessly dramatic opening scene from other monster flicks and allows the movie to jump right into the action. With in the course of 10 minutes you get the 'why', 'where,' and 'how' of the beast and are ready for action. In this the movie delivers.After another short and well shot sequence the characters are introduced: the lazy son and his precocious little girl, kind grandfather, and talented sister (aunt) and, of course, the monster. The characters are introduced in context to each other and their conflicts are instantly apparent, allowing the audience to feel for them when the monster shows up suddenly to wreak havoc in the river area where they live and work. The monster it's self looks great: alien yet familiar - kinda like a dog and fish pooped out by a squid. The effects of the creature are second to none and although it looks strange it is believable and at no point in the movie could you 'see it's strings.' Even the movement of the monster was horribly familiar, like a growing and excited rottweiler on linoleum the monster barrels through the crowd, slipping on surfaces, crushing and eating those in it's path. When the monster's path intersects with the family and tragedy ensues it truly is a painful moment, and you can feel the need for revenge but from there on out the movie's appeal begins to unravel.Following the dynamite beginning the movie quickly loses focus and continuity. Plot-lines are introduced, then abandoned, characters change their position for no apparent reason, and comedy is interlaced into dramatic scenes confusing intent, while obstacles appear and disappear seemingly at random. As for the comedy, let me say this: I'm willing to accept that a lot of the humor is probably cultural. I am not familiar with Korean humor so maybe things were lost in translation. However, as an Asian studies major in college and as someone who has been living in Japan for the last 5 years (still here) I'd like to think I have a better grasp on Asian humor than the average white-guy. That being said there were many parts of the movie that I understood were supposed to be funny, but, to me, weren't. *********** SPOILER************* For example: after the initial attack where the young daughter is lost the family is at the funeral; everyone is mourning. A new character is introduced - a brother - and tension is raised even higher as it becomes obvious that the two brothers are at odds with one another. They both begin to grieve for their loss and wind up competing with each other over who is grieving harder. This competition is, at it's core, funny: two brothers who dislike each-other so much they even compete at a funeral - it shows the prickly nature of familial love common in Asian comedy. This subtle slap-stick comedy poking fun at family and ritualized mourning is supposed to be funny but, seemed really out of place in the context of a lost little girl. ************** END SPOILER **************Then come the plot holes. there are so many points brought up in this movie that are never explained, or, worse, are explained and fretted over only to be proved impotent and pointless in the end. Finding out an obstacle isn't an obstacle can be a good thing for a character, but you'd expect some comment to that nature. Instead the audience is barraged by moments of anti-climax when problems just 'aren't there' anymore and no one gives an indication that it was ever a problem to start. So I ask you: why even bring it up in the first place? This was prevalent through out the film as problems gave rise to new problems, and suddenly the world of the movie is filled with opposing forces that never resolved each other. Of course introducing new and greater problems is a time-tested story telling tradition, but if the introduction of a new arc leads the the forced shortening of another you would expect at least that the new arc gets full explanation. Not in this movie. Instead it was as if you get several stories, each only explained 20% of the way and, in the end, the parts never converge to complete the whole.Again, I'm willing to accept that a lot of this might be 'cultural.' Maybe its in Korean story- telling tradition to put comedy inside a tragedy. Maybe it's normal for stories to go all over like a child who colors outside the lines on every-page, but never finishes one. Maybe it's OK to present a problem in order to develop the plot but then remove that problem randomly without any apparent solution or catharsis. Or maybe these are all hallmarks of sloppy work and bad storytelling rampant in a movie that seems to have a much better reputation than it deserves.


Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.


Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.


I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager."Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.


Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)


You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.


As B movies go, it was well above average (I warn the reader now that I may reveal certain key elements of the plot or other parts of the movie, although I am trying to minimise any such tendency). As sequels usually go, it was utterly fantastic(despite a "cookie cutter" approach to trying to copy certain elements from the original movie verbatum. Despite this sometimes tedious tendency, it seemed to work in this particular film, so long as the viewer could divorce his attention from comparisons to the original "Scanners").The movie was similar in ways to the "Superman" series, in terms of the main character's description of his early childhood and relationship with his parents (who seemed modelled along the same lines as the Kents in the "Superman" stories) and the theme of a morally pure hero possessed of extraordinary powers from an early age, etc. The depiction of profound feelings of alienation of prodigious or otherwise non-conforming children, adolescents and/or adults was a theme which reminded me of films such as "Real Genius", and (to a more superficial degree) "Doctor Mordrid" and struck a particularly strong chord.The film had a positive message, and was fun to watch. I found some of the insights and accuracy (in terms of depiction of certain aspects of paranormal experiences) fascinating, and even profoundly touching at times. These moments occasionally appeared from among all of the great formula-driven schlock and gratuitous sex(uality, in this case, as the sexual elements were tastefully done) and violence that makes B movies (or Shakespearian plays, for that matter!) so much fun to watch!This is a must watch for all comic book, Sci-fi, "remote viewing" enthusiasts, and horror fans! With the right exposure in the right circles, the film could develop quite a cult following, along with the original "Scanners".


First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.


What a perfect example of "Less Is More..." Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out "Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior" and "Braveheart" both starring Mel Gibson. Also "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The "Thirteenth Warrior" starring Antonio Banderas and "Blade Runner" starring Harrison Ford.


Anton Newcombe makes the film and he is the main subject. Watching him knock up a song if not a whole album quickly showed the guy to be a real talent. He thinks he is god but is so prollific and interesting. The DW are not really that interesting in comparison musicly or otherwise. "Hey, do you haver a drivers license?" ,Anton says to the cameraman, "Well lets go pawn this guitar!". Great use of archive/ home video material. Great to see rock docs still being made. A cool doc about the creative process. If you like this go see Nirvana Live! Tonight! Sold Out! on DVD. A good experience Anton is this film. 8 out of 10


I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.


Five years on from the Tenko survivors returning home, and from Marion's double-edged "Well that's that".It's now 1950: reunion time. The gang's all here: Marion, Bea, Ulrica, Kate, Dorothy, Christina, Dominica, and latecomers Maggie and Alice. The story that unfolds is a beaut: as perfectly written and acted, and as thought-provoking and moving, as the original series.All the questions left hanging at the end of the series are neatly answered here. From Marion's family to Joss's health centre, everything has changed in five years, and not everything has changed for the best.A trip to Dominica's plantation brings plenty of shocks and some truly edge-of-the-seat tension. There's a real sense of tragedy and disaster as, once again, fate takes over and the women struggle for their lives. Dominica finally shows her true colours, and there are some shout-at-the-telly moments of drama.Lush location filming in Singapore, and an opportunity to catch up with a group of women who feel like they have become friends. It's such a shame that this really is the end. I could watch it all over again. Perfection.


This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.Avoid this rubbish like the plague.I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.


A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.


I was literally preparing to hate this movie, so believe me when I say this film is worth seeing. Overall, the story and gags are contrived, but the film has the charm and finesse to pull them off. That gag where Jason Lee thinks he has crabs, and tries not to let his boss/future father-in-law and co-workers see him scratching himself isn't terribly intelligent, but it sent me into a frenzy of laughter. Very few of the film's gags are high-brow, but they made me laugh. As I said, the film has charm and charm can go a long way. The characters are likable, too. I must say I wish I got to see more of James Brolin's character, since he was a hoot in the very few scenes he was in. Plus, I admire any romantic comedy that has the guts to not make the character of the wife (who serves as the obstacle in the plot) a total witch. The Selma Blair character is hardly unlikable, and there's never a scene where I thought to myself, "Why did he want to marry her in the first place?" The ending is Hollywood-ish, but it could've been much more schmaltzy. The cast is talented. I haven't had a favorable view of most of Jason Lee's mainstream work. I just loved him so much in Kevin Smith's films that I couldn't help but feel disappointed at seeing him in these dopey roles. And he never looks comfortable in these dopey roles. Even in this movie, he doesn't look perfectly comfortable, but he contributes his own two cents and effectively handles each scene. But I still miss his work in independent films. Julia Stiles proves again why she's so damn likable. Of course, she's a very beautiful girl with a radiant smile that makes me want to faint, but she also possesses a unique charm and seems to have good personality. In other words, her beauty shows inside and out. I don't know the actresses' name, but the woman who plays the drunk granny is hilarious. Julie Hagerty also has a small part, and she's always enjoyable to watch, which makes me wish she received better roles. I loved her so much in "Airplane" and "Lost in America" that it's a shame she doesn't get the same opportunities to flaunt her skills. Don't be put off by the horrible trailers and even more horrible box office records. This is a funny, charming film. Romantic comedies are getting so predictable nowadays that it feels like the genre itself is ready to be flushed down the toilet, so it's always to see a good one among all these bad apples. My score: 7 (out of 10)


The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10


Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :)


James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem.


Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the "twists" are downright cruel.


Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.


I first caught the movie on its first run on HBO in (probably) 1981 and being 15 years old I thought the movie was hilarious. I remember NOT seeing the Alfred E. Neuman depictions shown in the theatrical trailers. When MAD Magazine satired the movie and abruptly halted half way through with apologies from the "usual gang" for lowering themselves to satire such a piece of crap, I just assumed they were poking fun at themselves, which I'm sure they were, but to seriously find them ( and Ron Liebman ) so embarrassed to remove their names from any credits, I was quite surprised. Surely there are many worse movies to be associated with. Watching the movie on video now (at age 32) with the MAD references restored, I still get a kick out of it. And being a Ron Liebman fan (Hot Rock, Where's Poppa?) I think it's his crown jewel of performances (SAY IT AGAAAAIN)


enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there.


I think 'Blackadder the Third' is the best one of the series.Actuelly all the episodes are funny, personally i really like the episode with the 'French invasion', but the one with the superstitious actors, in 'MACBETH' is also really funny, the way Rowan keeps playing on with them is really (English) Humor at the highest level.Actors: 'Never say that again, always call it the Scottish Play; Blackadder: Oh, So you want me to say the Scottish Play? Actors: YES Blackadder: Rather than MACBETH...!I am a big fan of Rowan and i have the majority of his work, but i think he did the series of Blackadder especially good.I Hope Rowan is going to continue his great style, but i think we can count on him, because he is already working on a Bean 2 Movie, that will be out this year, i can't wait...I Give this 3rd Blackadder a 9 out of 10 Rating.


BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD starts off promisingly, setting up a simple heist that goes awry, told from varying perspectives (in RASHOMON style). At around the hour mark, Sidney Lumet transforms this film into something that is so much more than the sum of its parts; it eventually morphs into a multi-faceted family drama, exploring the full realm of human emotions/relations, as the story comes to its chilling climax.As is the case with Lumet, he manages to coax exceptional performances out of his star-studded cast, without any notion of over-acting or hyperbole. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in one of his best roles, is a complex, mysterious, and interesting character, and oftentimes dwarfs Ethan Hawke, who plays his brother, Hank. That's not to say that Hawke is not bad; in fact he is quite above adequate, in a troubled role that suits his style. Marisa Tomei is excellent for her relatively short appearance (the fact that she bares her flesh adds to this). Albert Finney's character (Andy and Hank's father) is the most intriguing, and in my opinion, he deserved a bit more screen-time. Amy Ryan also performs her job adequately.BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is not an exceptional movie, but it proves that Lumet is still near the top of his game at the (apparent) twilight of an illustrious career. Many of his characteristics and trademarks appear here, not least of which involves the use of his characters. Infused with a killer script (no pun intended), smart dialogue and pacing, and a decent score, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is a must-see. A truly underrated gem. 8/10. 3 stars (out of 4). Should just enter my Top 250 at 248. Highly recommended.


I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...


"The Straight Story" is a truly beautiful movie about an elderly man named Alvin Straight, who rides his lawnmower across the country to visit his estranged, dying brother. But that's just the basic synapsis...this movie is about so much more than that. This was Richard's Farnworth's last role before he died, and it's definitely one that he will be remembered for. He's a stubborn old man, not unlike a lot of the old men that you and I probably know. "The Straight Story" is a movie that everyone should watch at least once in their lives. It will reach down and touch some part of you, at least if you have a heart, it will.


My mother took me to see this film as a child and I long to see it every year as I do all of my other Christmas favorites. What I remember most was the silly Devil and Santa looking through his telescope. I waited and looked through the T.V. Guide each year after that to see when it would be shown. I would usually find it playing on a Saturday afternoon. I only found the movie in English which took something special away from the film and have longed to find a copy of it in Spanish. I hold this film dear to my heart and have never suffered from nightmares as others might suggest. Yes, it is a different film about Santa Claus and that is what makes it special and unique. I can't wait to get a copy of this film and watch it with my children as I explain to them my favorite parts and memories!!


I thought that Baseketball was one of the most funniest films i have ever seen! It's witty humour made me giggle all the way through, and the fact that Trey and Matt are so over the top, boosts the film's comedy. I have just bought Baseketball on DVD and its just one of those movies where you would never get tired of watching it. I have a very short attention span and i think this film has so any funny bits that it keeps me entertained throughout. The humorous quotes are memorable, and can make me laugh for hours if i remember them later..So overall i think that Baseketball is brilliant movie which everyone should go see, especially if you're younger like me as it will keep you laughing for a long time afterwards. P.s Does anybody think its weird for me to like them both? hehe


About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?


I actually like Asylum movies. I've made it a habit to see as many as possible. Even the rip-offs they've done have been cool like EXORCISM And WHEN A KILLER CALLS. This is just plain lame. I can't believe that the same people who made DEAD MEN WALKING and DRACULA'S CURSE actually made this movie too!!! It's not even laughably bad like JOLLY ROGER or ALIEN ABDUCTION (which, by the way are pretty bad). This is just BAD! I mean, I can appreciate and/or forgive bad acting or lame special effects in an Asylum movie, but this film takes itself way too seriously. I really hope that SNAKES ON A TRAIN is better. Now that's a movie I can't wait to see.


It's depressing to see where Jackie Chan has ended up. He used to be an unstoppable hurricane of punches, kicks and incredible stunts. To be fair, he's now in his fifties and one would expect some slowdown. But with 'Rush Hour 3', where he takes a back seat to Chris Tucker (of all people!), and then there's 'Kung Fu Panda' where not only is he in a purely vocal role but his character barely has any dialogue... to say that Jackie Chan has seen better days is a colossal understatement.It's times like this when the only solution is to whip out a dusty old VHS tape and watch Jackie kick some arses in his younger, fitter, Chris Tucker-free days.Enter 'Police Story'. Jackie Chan plays Kar-kui, a policeman whose task it is to protect a witness before a major trial. He faces resistance from both the unco-operative witness and the numerous hit men sent by the mob to silence them both.But on the other hand, who cares? We don't watch Jackie Chan films for the story. We watch them to see Jackie Chan perform eye-popping stunts and generally punch and kick a whole lot of people who are less awesome than he is.And on that level, 'Police Story' doesn't disappoint at all. There is an awesome showdown in a shopping mall at the end that culminates in Jackie sliding down a giant, high-voltage chandelier. Seriously, if this sort of thing happened more often, no male would ever need coaxing to go shopping for clothes.There is also comedy, much of which involves Kar-kui inadvertently upsetting May (Maggie Cheung), his eternally suffering and apparently ever forgiving girlfriend. The humour on the whole is pretty unsubtle, but it works so I'm not complaining.The acting isn't too subtle, either. Indeed, I'm not sure there was anything subtle about 'Police Story' at all. Director Jackie Chan (yeah, he does that too) clearly has a deep understanding of why we watch his films, and knows that while we're waiting for the next fight to start, the last thing we want is to be looking for nuance and depth and inner meaning.So 'Police Story' is a blast. As is the case with most of his films, the fact that Jackie actually does the stuff you see on the screen puts it head and shoulders above the competition. I mean, when Jackie Chan really is hanging from a speeding bus by an umbrella, a whole new "Wow!" factor is added to the action.


Quite simply the best reality show ever made. The first two seasons (the only ones that matter) are on Hulu. I challenge anyone to watch the first three episodes of season 1 and not like it. I guarantee you will finish watching the season. Then I guarantee that you will watch season 2. Other quick reasons to watch it: 1. Anderson Cooper is hilarious 2. The locations in Europe are awesome 3. The games are mentally challenging 4. It's very interactive 5. In one episode a player responds to another player's desperate, "I'm trying as hard as I can!" with an equally desperate, "Not necessarily." Can you figure out...Who Is The Mole?


There is this private campground in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that's been around since 1959. My grandparents were among its founders, my parents had a site starting in 1965, and my two brothers have sites there now.(This doesn't have anything directly to do with the movie; bear with me.) I spent summers at Blueberry Hill from when I was five years old to when I was eighteen, and it is to people like me to whom this film speaks: the ones for whom a group camp in the woods was, as my fiancée tells of me, "the good and happy place." If you've never experienced the lifestyle, Indian Summer will probably be lost on you; don't bother. It's not quick-paced, it doesn't have rapid cuts, the plots aren't in the least bit convoluted, it has no explosions, such dramatic tension as exists is mild, there aren't any A-list actors, there are no rapid-fire quips just to show off how clever the scriptwriters are (other than, perhaps, Kimberley Williams' killer line about how her fiancé shouldn't "overwind his toys." That is not the least degree what this movie is about, any more than The Godfather is a slasher flick just because it has a lot of on screen gore.But Indian Summer is Godfather's polar opposite. If you have experienced the lifestyle, see this movie. Don't read any more, just do it.For me, this is a 9/10 film.


...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**


After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.


As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy". There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.


I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture. As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever! Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.


This movie was extremely boring. It should least not more than 15 minutes. The images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing.Usually I don't write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. I think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title.What more can I say? I fall asleep during this movie 3 times. It was about 4 hours after I had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. I think it is the point itself.There is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end.When you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again.


wow! i watched the trailer for this one and though 'nah, this one is not for me'. i watched my husband and our friend's faces during the trailer, and knew this was a 'boy movie'. i mean, hallo! a bunch of chick barmaids that dance - another striptease?then, i started watching it, it didn't look all that bad. so i carried on watching. i watched it right to the end. what an awesome movie. if anything, this is a chick-flick. these girls have attitude. it is really a feel-good movie, and a bit of a love story. really leaves you with a nice feeling.basically, the story of a small-town girl making it big in the city, after going through the usual big-city c**p. there have been a couple of these, it is almost a new urban legend. but it also makes you think of your life, and what you have achieved. well, me anyway. i think it is because the whole working in a bar scenario is very familiar, not just for me, but for many people i know. Don't trust the trailers for this one - it is aimed at bringing the men in.


THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN (2005) **** Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Gerry Bednob, Shelley Malil, Kat Dennings. Hysterically funny high-concept comedy about the titular Andy Stitzer (wonderfully played by perennial second banana Carell in a truly extraordinarily comic breakthrough performance sure to stratosphere him to the A-list), a tech services rep for an electronics store in Southern California who is found out about his secretive identity by a trio of well-meaning yet entirely clueless womanizing co-worker buddies (Rudd, Malco & Rogen, each one degree funnier than the next) determined to get their friend deflowered no matter the cost. What follows is an unlikely yet very warm-hearted romance with a vivacious mother (the marvelous Keener having lots of fun here) leading to add more fuel to the fires within Andy. A surprisingly good-spirited and unapologetically raunchy romantic comedy; the funniest since "There's Something About Mary" with a shrewdly observant script by director Judd Apatow and Carell that features some astoundingly gut-busting sequences including a scathingly accurate David Caruso joke, homophobic debunking ribbing, send-ups of 'date-a-paloozas' and demystifying the war of the sexes with cheeky aplomb. A true winner and an instant classic; the funniest film of the year.