This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun.


Well, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.A good gift for someone you hate.


Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of secondsThe shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention. Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.


This is possibly the worst fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the so called sports fencing is poor but because the plot, characters are so weak that they've got to throw in a semi nude sex scene and, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, I suppose to maintain audience interest. What a waste of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, but if it ever happens it's got to have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth.


While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved."Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide")


What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.


It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D


This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.And that's it for the good things.The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?


I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts. Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x


I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!!


This particular Joe McDoakes short subject was obviously inspired by the all star Warner Brothers spectacular Thank Your Lucky Stars, one of those all star wartime morale boosters of the period. In that one Eddie Cantor played both himself and a would be comedian who'd like to break into films except for his resemblance to Cantor.George O'Hanlon who starred in the McDoakes shorts is both himself and McDoakes who's just trying to get a break in film. Like Thank Your Lucky Stars a few Warner Brothers contract players with a free moment strolled through this film.O'Hanlon's been sent by central casting for a small one line role in a World War I film, but lookalike McDoakes gets the message. The poor guy is so nervous about his big moment, he starts thinking of ways to deliver his one line. Maybe sounding like a real movie star would help.86 takes later to the exasperation of director Ralph Sanford and the patient Clyde Cook who plays a British cockney soldier they do find a niche in the film business for poor McDoakes. It's worth seeing this very funny short subject which was nominated for an Oscar to find out what happens to O'Hanlon/McDoakes.Both of them.


IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.


Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur  even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.But it wouldn't be a Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen  and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman  he was also Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing  it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.Animation holds a special place in my heart  but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family.


Saving Grace is surely one of the leading contenders for the 'How to Ruin an Adequate Film in the Final Few Minutes' award. Naturally if you mix a quaint Cornish village - largely populated by retired genteel ladies - with a liberal dose of marijuana, a certain amount of silliness will ensue. However, the last seven minutes of the film descend into the totally ludicrous and is not even redeemed by being particularly funny. It is a real shame, because this comedy has the potential to be every bit as good as 1998's Waking Ned Devine, which also portrayed a picturesque small village and its oddball inhabitants trying to extract themselves from a tricky situation.The protagonist of Saving Grace is middle-aged, recently widowed Grace Trevethyn, whose husband's legacy of bad debts has forced her into an unconventional way of earning money. Helped by her gardener, Matthew, she turns her horticultural expertise to the lucrative cultivation of marijuana. Unfortunately, this leads her into confrontation with the local police, her husband's creditors and a French drug baron. . . . . . . . . . whom all turn up at her greenhouse simultaneously. The relationship and rapport between Grace and Matthew is well-portrayed, and Brenda Blethyn gets the viewer emotionally involved with her likeable character - you can really feel what she is going through.The casting of the minor roles is excellent, even if some of them are rather outlandishly eccentric. However, the transformation of Jacques the drug lord into Grace's romantic interest is highly implausible and does not fit the tone of the movie at all. And surely hydroponics is not such a revolution in the world of cannabis growing? Sadly the film swaps gentle humour for slapstick and ends up being as fake as the marijuana plants.


Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...


I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic "Casper the Friendly Ghost" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming "A Ghost!"Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Peace on Earth," this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short.


For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.


I first saw this film when I was about 8 years old on TV in the UK (where it was called "Laupta: The Flying Island"). I absolutely loved it, and was heartbroken when it was repeated a while later and I missed it. I was enchanted by the story and characters, but most of all by the haunting and beautiful music. It would have been the original English dubbed version which I saw - sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Streamline Dub" (the dub was actually by Ghibli themselves and only distributed by Streamline) which is sadly unavailable except as part of a ridiculously expensive laser disc box-set.Unfortunately I feel that the release has been partly spoiled by Disney. The voice acting is OK but the dialogue doesn't have the same raw energy that the "streamline" dub or the original Japanese had, and I think James Van Der Beek sounds too old to play the lead. They have made some pointless alterations, such as changing the main character's name from "Pazu" to "Patzu", and added some dialogue. But worst of all I feel that they have ruined many scenes with intrusive music - the opening scene of the airships for example was originally silent but has been spoiled thanks to Disney's moronic requirement that there be music playing whenever anyone is not speaking, which I find annoying in many Disney films.This film still blows away most recent animated films, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. The plot is simple yet captivating and the film shows a flair which is sadly missing from most modern mass-market, homogenized animation.


How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.


Unusual? Yes!Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant "Somebody Up There Loves Me".Unusual for two fine "Stars" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss!


This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one. The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!).


What would happened when a depressed cop works with a shrink on probation? May be a lot of fun... This movie set a benchmark in the action/comedy genre of the Argentinean cinema. Dearable characters, probable story and a pace that between laughs has some thrill. I recommended it for a pleasant time of entertaining. Peretti and Luque join their efforts to fight against a cold and daringly foe in a time when it's difficult to trust someone. This movie will surprise you, the other side of the coin of "Analyze me", but not alike, with nothing to envy. And if you like to know Bs.AS there where few scenes of downtown and the city center.


A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". (**)


This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.


I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing.


This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable.


Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull "holier-than-thou" director.Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line "working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end".Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become "good" again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.Severely disappointing under every aspect.


Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.


Only the chosen ones will appreciate the quality of the story and character design of this movie. Superior ancients that dwell in the lands of lore far beyond any average human creature's understanding. This movie pulls the adventure genre into a unique centrifugal magical force of fantasy unto thee mystical crystals of chalice. Stories come and go, but the idea for a good story is to think positive, not negative thoughts. To create a good versus evil battle like never before. Embracing an impounding shimmering process that keeps imagination glowing in one dimension and out the other. Striking a quick flash of energy that transports a human to another world.


Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded
 14 years after shooting shut down.Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues
 long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.


SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark.


Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was! The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.


Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role!


Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.


I must admit, at first I wasn't expecting anything good, at all. I was only expecting a cheesy movie promoting Gackt's and Hyde's image, but I'm glad to say it has much more to offer.Yes, the acting is not that great, but it doesn't suck either, all the cast's well disciplined and they bring enough strength to their characters. Effects lack consistency but action scenes are satisfying enough.What really hooked me up was the essence of the storyline, although it merges fantastic elements, it also displays a crude reality. The developing of the characters, their doubts and their feelings really got on to me and I think that's the key of this movie. It puts you to think and it does well transmitting all the angst.It fulfills any expectations for a good drama. I would definitely recommend it to everyone.


And, finally, old, old Michael Corleone falls over and goes 'THUMP!' Who REALLY did the writing for this last installment of the Godfather saga? Probably the same staff who does "As the World Turns." This flick doesn't deserve the title "Godfather" at all. Let's call this one "The Cosas of Our Nostras" or "All My Capos". As someone who's encountered a number of Mafia people in my business life, I can say without exception, that I've never met any mobster as inwardly-conflicted and contemplative as Michael Corleone. Let's face it, these guys are in the Mafia solely because they're greedy, nothing more. In this film, Don Corleone spends lots of time pondering his past deeds and his bleak future, perhaps even the Afterlife, then recovers remarkably fast in order to pull off some fantastic business deal or order the death of this one or that one like the big time operator he is, deep down. Then, there's his failed marriage. After the break-up scenes in G2, we may hope that Michael & Kay will reunite as man and wife, but here they seem to just become very good, platonic friends who can laugh & cry & share intimate thoughts about their lives. It's as if the screenwriters try to make Michael into a woman. It's bizarre behavior for two people who shared the passion of the marriage bed for 9 years. There's some miscasting here and there, or perhaps they're sins of authorship. Poor, old-country-beautiful Sophia Coppola is saddled with a hopeless role, with too many short lines in the film that don't fit what a young woman would say in casual conversations - was given "remarks" rather than "lines" to emote. Her 'passionate' lovemaking scene with Andy Garcia looks like something from a bad teen sex comedy as they chew their open-mouthed kisses and fondle each others backsides on the kitchen drainboard like marionettes...scullery sex was brought off wonderfully by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, but it's just laughable here. Then, there's Andy's character, Vinnie Mancini, who's also given a difficult & thankless role to play. He's expected, I guess, to be the new, new Don Corleone, but he's almost handed the job on a silver platter and has to do little to strengthen his position, unlike Michael's simultaneous hits on all 5 Families in G1. This hand-me-down process may be an authentic way of transferring power in a Mafia Family, but why is so much made of this boring routine? Certainly, Don Vincent may earn the respect of his fellow gangsters someday, but there's little character revelations in the script to give us a portrait of this young man, sadly. Puzo did such a fine job of quickly & concisely developing Michael's character in G1. But, G3 has no economy in it's story-telling and we suffer through drawn out expositories until we just want to take a snooze. Thirdly, George Hamilton was also handed a thankless task, in taking over as family lawyer after Robt Duvall reportedly turned down a 3rd installment as Tom Hagen. George wisely underplayed his role, so it came off without damage to the actor. The development of Connie Corleone's character is interesting, but it goes too far when she takes murderous matters into her own hands (she could well end up sleeping with the Fredos, if this were the real world). But, it's not all bad. The assassination scene in the hotel penthouse is nifty! Also, "they keep pulling me back in" or words to that effect is a great line. And, we recover some old-country feel as we get to go back to Sicily, even if it's all done in 1989 and they've got modern cars & haircuts. The plot lines involving the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic Church are pretty interesting, since it's based on some actual financial shenanigans at Banco Vaticani in the 1980's, but it's brought too far, again, with the too-spectacular death scenes, etc. The Grand Opera scenes are very dramatic and well photographed. But, the death scene of Mary toward the end is an unbalanced attempt of emotional-manipulation, at best. All screenwriters need to learn that we don't always need more and more death in order to bring a mafia movie to a successful conclusion. You feel sorry for Kay that her daughter is dead, she plays her grief so well, but Michael's reaction is hammy, hammy, hammy. Then, Michael dies sometime in the 21st Century, in Sicily, alone on a grand estate, of heart-failure...no grandson to play with before his demise, no wife to grieve for him. What SHOULD have happened in the last 1/2 of this movie is Michael being tracked down by someone like Rudy Guilliani, put on trial, all his dirty family's sleazy little enterprises and bloodthirsty indulgences brought into the light of day, Michael then convicted under RICO statutes and sent to Federal Prison for life...then he can keel over dead from heart-failure while mopping a floor IN LEAVENWORTH. That's how mafia dons were ending their careers in the late 80's and early 90's and they got much better treatment than what they deserved.


The Lion King 1 1/2 is a very cute story to go along with The Lion King. It basically follows the original story of The Lion King but with a couple of twists. In the movie,e vents are explained by a different characters point of view. This story is still an original plot.As far as sequels go, Disney isn't all that great at making worthwhile ones. This one, being the third part to The Lion King (Simba's Pride is the second.) actually has an original idea to it while still involving the fun of the first. Timon and Pumbaa travel along looking for the ideal place to live. After searching far and wide, they find the place of "Hakuna Matata". They then meet a small lion named Simba, and go through many things that parents today go through.I think this is a very good movie, and I'm happy to add it to my collection.


Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', "Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!


My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the oddsI have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it!


This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old.


Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.


There are four great movie depicting the Vietnam War. They are (in no particular order: Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and finally Tigerland. All but Tigerland focus on the actual war and the men in it. Tigerland focuses on men in advanced training for the Vietnam War. The character of Boz is one of the most important depictions of a man questioning war, and the absurdity of it. This has been done in many war movies, but rarely in boot camp. Also, this is a very complex character, whose method with dealing with his feeling and emotions are the driving force of this movie. The character of Boz makes this movie so good. It is a shame it did not get a major release. It belongs on the shelf of any movie fan alongside the aforementioned movie titles.


When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes.


Steve Biko was a black activist who tried to resist the white minority governed South Africa in much the same way as Gandhi tried to resist the British empire's colonialism in India. Richard Attenborough's film Cry Freedom is not about Biko or Apartheid as much as it is about Donald Woods, the white liberal newspaper editor who risked his life trying to tell Biko's story. The film has a jarring point of view switch after Biko dies in prison from tortuous behavior at the hands of South African "police". Woods, played by Kevin Kline, must choose whether to do the right thing and flee the country to publish books about Biko or allow his wife, played by Penelope Wilton, to pressure him into forgetting about the books. In that case, Biko dies in vain. What begins as a life-changing friendship between Biko and Woods degenerates into a standard by the numbers escape over the border yarn after Biko's death. Oscar-nominated Denzel Washington is good in only his fourth film as Biko, but something is wrong in a film that tries to depict the struggles of Apartheid by focusing more on the trials of a white family for more than half the film. Attenborough would have served his topic better by focusing on Biko's rise to prominence instead of beginning where Biko befriended Woods. Perhaps a black actor in a leading role in a 2 1/2 hour film wasn't exactly conducive to big box office, but the film was a tremendous box office flop anyway. Film politics aside, the film still entertains and sends a message or two, albeit, in PG-sanitized fashion. *** of 4 stars.


Hollywood now has officially gone too far and I really hope that this travesty of a motion picture creates a genuine backlash against their crap machines, in spite of the good box office returns. If you are an industry person reading our comments looking for hints on what to do next, STOP. Stop making our TV shows into these repellent, stupid, money grubbing waste of time movies that suck. By doing so you are proving one thing: Hollywood is out of ideas, and going to see the movies they churn out only perpetuates the cycle of disgust. What's next -- You guys gonna go & ruin The Bionic Man??The film is just plain wrong, and manages to get the most stupid, simple fact of the show totally incorrect by forgetting (or ignoring) that Tom Wopat & John Schneider's Bo & Luke Duke were *REFORMED* moonshiners. They had been busted, learned their lesson, gone straight, and were there to help people and be good neighbors who just happened to shoot dynamite tipped arrows from hunting bows & drive like Steve McQueen. Denver Pyle's Uncle Jessie was also the moral center of the family, always insisting that the Boys do good, even at their own expense or embarrassment while he made sandwiches and coffee for when the chores were done. They always did the right thing and had a sort of earnest naiveté about them that was quite appealing. We wanted to be more like them than we were, sorta. My favorite gimmick from the show was how they always buckled their seat belts before roaring off, which was apparently too moral for this film.By transforming the Duke family into a pack of leering, wisecracking, criminally minded, redneck baiting, misogynistic losers the movie has no moral standpoint, where the show was all about how honest or incorruptible the Dukes were -- Are the Duke boys in this movie supposed to come off as good guys? I wanted to punch them both in the nose. They seem to have a lot of free time on their hands that could be spent doing chores back at the farm and end up pursuing less than noble ends, if not acting like a pair of 14 year old boys who haven't grown up. There should be no marijuana use, no gawking at buxom, nubile coeds & their breasts, no shenanigans involving the Brothers in da Hood. All of it looks like the work of a marketing consultant who took a poll at the mall of what 14 year old boys like to see in movies. The problem being that 14 year old boys cannot possibly remember the show, IMHO shouldn't be seeing this movie either, and the parents who might feel nostalgia for the show will be disgusted by what the writers, director & producers did to our collective memories just to part us from our money, which is exactly how I feel. What were they thinking???And boy did they *EVER* get Daisy wrong. Jessica Simpson all dolled up like a Pamela Anderson mall slut may be the only reason for anyone to see this disgrace, but you can service your needs just fine downloading some promotional stills of her, printing them up & pinning them to the wall in a restroom. She is hardly in the film at all (which is the movie's only saving grace), and the ten minutes or so they used her was STILL excessive. Catherine Bach's Daisy may have had the same kind of shorts, and long legs that make people feel funny just looking at her, but the Daisy she played was a *PERSON*. The pratfalls she elicited by simply being who she was had an almost natural ring to it. She remains one of the most outrageously sexy pop culture icons ever created but there was somebody at home. And most importantly she was a sweet, caring person who couldn't help it if the guys went Ga Ga over her.By contrast, Jessica Simpson appears phony, contrived, made up, costumed, posed, aloof, bored, out of place, and I don't think she even looks that great in the outfit. She doesn't look like a person but a plot device, conjured up during a deal with someone representing her agent. Ms. Simpson would be well advised to fire that person immediately and pretend like the whole thing never even happened. Whatever the joke was, she isn't in on it and is disgracefully exploited for T&A. If that's all she wants from her career, executive produce the sequel if only to ensure yourself enough screen time at least, because this effort was just pathetic.The bottom line is SKIP IT. For the cost of two tickets and a Slurpee to go you can pick up one of Warner Bros. excellent box set collections of the original shows on DVD and the entire family can watch them together. That was why it worked. The only real purpose I can see in the film might be it's future use as an interrogation tool at Guantanamo Bay. Twenty minutes of this & they'll be singing a choir.1/10, and I mean it. And STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIONIC MAN, you schnooks.


Before I begin, let me tell you how GREAT this stand-up special sounds when you play Sonic Adventure I DX: Director's Cut at the same time (Red Mountain level in particular). So while watching this stand-up special, I suggest-- no, DEMAND you do it.Carlos Mencia takes his stand-up to the extreme in San Francisco, California. There, he makes fun of everybody with absolutely NO apologies.I am pretty much thanking God here that Carlos didn't do his thing in which he uses the same joke over and over and over and over and over again. He does a tremendous job making fun of everyone and at the same time be truthful about it; I know a couple of times I said, after Carlos said a joke, "Damn, this guy makes a good point!" And then the Game Over screen came over my TV because I forgot I was playing Sonic Adventure I DX: Director's Cut. My bad :) So yeah, there's nothing to complain about this stand-up special. If you have TiVo or something like that, please do yourself a favor and record this historic hour.


I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.) I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers!


What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.


Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.


Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.


I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10


This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.


If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.


whereas the hard-boiled detective stories of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler have fitted to cinema like a fox in a chicken coop - indeed creating the definitively modern American genre and style in the process - those of what might be called Golden Age fiction have made barely any impression whatsoever. The problem with books like those of Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers or S.S. Van Dine (on whose work this film is based), is that they are low on action or variety - whereas Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe traverse the mean streets of LA, working class tenements, bars, offices, wealthy mansions, and meet all sorts of exciting dangers and violence, Golden Age fiction is generally fixed in location, the scene of the murder, usually a lavish country house, and the action is limited to investigating clues and interviewing suspects. This is a very static procedure, plot reduced to puzzle.This, of course, is as much ideological as anything else, the Golden Age stories dealing with a society hostile to change and movement; the hard-boiled novels recording an urban reality increasingly moving away from a centre (both of authority, and of a city), dividing itself up into hostile, ever uncontrollable and lawless camps. Another major problem with Golden age fiction is character - because we cannot know the answer to the crime until the end, we cannot gain access to characters' motivations or emotions, being defined solely by their potential need to murder. The detective, unlike the anxious, prejudice-ridden private eyes, are simply there to be brilliant, and maybe a little eccentric.The problem with most films from Golden Age books is that they try to be period recreations of the Merchant Ivory/Jane Austen school, and end up looking silly. There have been successes, for example the radical reworkings of Ellery Queen and others by Claude Chabrol. In the English-speaking world, there have really only been two. The Alistair Sim classic, 'Green For Danger', works because it pushes the form almost into parody, while never betraying the integrity or interest of the mystery.Before that came Michael Curtiz's brilliant 'The Kennel Murder Case'. The narrative is pure Golden Age. A repulsive character is introduced who gives a number of potential suspects reason to kill him. He is duly murdered in a seemingly foolproof manner, indicating suicide, slumped in a locked room. The caricatured policemen fall hopelessly for the bait. It is up to Philo Vance, gentleman and amateur detective, neither old nor fat, to read the clues more insightfully, open the case out of the confines of the room, and eventually solve the case, the corpse being little more than the pretext for intellectual stimulation.What is interesting is not this detective plot - which can only ever be unsatisfying as all solutions are - although it is rarely less than entertaining, and full of comical bits of business. There isn't even really an attempt to 'subvert' the image of the perfect detective - there is one alarming scene where a brutal sergeant threatens to rough up a suspect, with no protest from Vance, but that's about it.What marks 'Kennel' as a classic is its modernity. Curtiz is not generally considered a great auteur, because he has no consistent themes or evidence of artistic development. But he was Hollywood's greatest craftsman, and he is on sensational form here. if the Golden Age detective story is mere puzzle, Curtiz takes this idea to is logical extreme, creating an abstract variation on his source, reducing narrative, character and location to geometry, a series of lines, from the beautiful art-deco sets to the glorious camera movements which suddenly break from a static composition , and, as they glide furiously at an angle, jolt the dead decor to life.This treatment is appropriate to a story that resolutely refuses realism, it is a pattern that turns the detective plot into a hall of mirrors, like the two central brothers, or the original crime itself, borrowed from an 'Unsolved Mysteries' book. This fantasy world of nasty rich men who collect Oriental relics (shades of 'The Moonstone'?), inscrutable Chinese servants, ex-cons turned butlers, dog-loving fops, Runyonesque cops, is the perfect habitat for Vance, a man who will drop a cruise to Europe on a fanciful hunch, who knows the social world of these people, and yet is tainted by his interest in crime and association with the police, or would be if he wasn't anything more than a thinking machine, William Powell, the greatest American comedian of the decade, bravely subsuming his idiosyncratic humanity.But if the treatment is rarefied, the climax is spectacularly brutal, involving vicious dogs and attempted murder. The police and the detective, supposed to be preventing crime, are guilty of inciting one.


While the premise of the film is pretty lame (Ollie is diagnosed with "hornophobia"), the film is an amiable and enjoyable little flick. It's also a darn bit better than the films they went on to make after this one--probably since this was the last Hal Roach-produced Laurel and Hardy film. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea not to see ANY of their latter films, as the entire chemistry is lost in these films and the boys play their parts purely for pathos--something true Laurel and Hardy films NEVER would do. They had a bit of an edge that all the later films lack.Stan and Ollie work at a horn factory. This sounds pretty funny, but it isn't. Not surprisingly with all the racket, Ollie is about to have a nervous breakdown and must take some time off work. The doctor (James Finlayson--in his last film with the team) recommends an ocean voyage. However, they don't like sailing and Stan has an idea of just renting a boat tied to the dock--then they can get all the sea air they want without all the bother! Once they are on the boat, a dangerous escaped criminal boards the boat and they all accidentally set out to sea. Fortunately, this portion of the film actually was well-paced and the very end worked out very well.While not a great full-length Laurel and Hardy film, it was much better than many of them since it had no annoying and distracting musical numbers (like in THE DEVIL'S BROTHER or BABES IN TOYLAND). Additionally, there is still a decent amount of physical comedy--something you would see almost none of after this film. Part of this was due to the boys' declining health (and Ollie's increasing girth) and part of it was due to the overall insipidness of these later films.


My Super X-Girlfriend is one hell of a roller coaster ride. The special effects were excellent and the costumes Uma Thurman wore were hubba buba. Uma Thurman is an underrated comedic actress but she proved everyone wrong and nailed her role as the lunatic girlfriend. She was just simply FABULOUS!!! Luke Wilson was also good as the average Joe but he was a brave man to work with one of the greatest actresses of all time. The supporting cast was also superb especially Anna Faris who was extremely good (A lot better than in the Scary Movie franchise).Ivan Rietman did very well in directing this film because if it wasn't for him and Uma Thurman this film wouldn't have done so well. This film is clearly a 10/10 for it's cast (Uma Thurman), it's director, it's screenplay and from it's original plot line. This film is very highly recommended.


Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing.


The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.


The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.


Predictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this "poor man's afternoon special" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.


I loved this show so much and I'm so incredibly sad its canceled i thought it came back too, but just two stupid weeks. Thats terrible. i hate how we never find out how everyone ends up. it sucks. Bring it back! ABC has stupid shows like Supernanny and whatnot but doesn't give time to good ones like Six Degrees. If they're complaining about ratings it was probably because they had a bad slot because this was truly a good show, something I could relate to and anticipated. JJ Abrams delivered, he's awesome, I wish ABC could just trust him enough to complete the story. I loved the entire cast too. I couldn't wait to see how everyone would someday meet each other at once. Everyone's story is now left incomplete, now I'll never know if Steven and Whitney would get together or Carlos and Mae. I wanted to see what would happen to Laura or Damien and everyone else. This is really such a downer.


A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it.


Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointlessThe twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10


Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.


This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.


This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie."ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke! The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim. The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.3 out of 10


Saying a film is depressing isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm very willing to watch a depressing film if there is a point to be made and this one certainly has one. It's the often heartbreaking story of a Chinese man and his family as they experience many years of both hardship and plenty. BUT, I must warn you that this might just be about the most depressing film to come out of Hollywood in the 1930s--because peasant life in China was TOUGH to say the least. Be prepared to watch segments about famine, death and disease.About the only negative other than the persistent tone of misery is that the lead is played by Paul Muni. While he was an exceptionally talented man, it's just a real shame that Hollywood always cast people of European descent to play Asian leads during this era. If you are paying attention at all, it's pretty obvious that Muni is wrong for the part.


They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other "bank" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges.


I had no idea what this movie was until I read about it in the L.A. Weekly. I generally agree with the reviews in the LA Weekly and decided to get a ticket for this film. the film stars molly parker (from my favorite television show Deadwood) and Lukas haas -- who I suspect we will be seeing more of in the very near future. The film is funny, heartwarming, features great acting, and beautiful photography. i don't know if the film has distribution, but I hope it does - or will - soon. this is destined to be a real indie gem. it even has music by my favorite band the silver jews! the only disappointment was that molly parker wasn't there at the screening. even without her there... this was hands down the best film i saw at the festival.


Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.


This movie makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding this movie.


Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like "The Rat Patrol" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence. James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing ("Maverick", "Support Your Local Sheriff"-"Gunfighter" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose. The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of "Alias Smith and Jones" with the same plot.The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.