I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.


I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.


WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.


Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen.


Rated PG-13 for violence, brief sexual humor and drug content. Quebec Rating:13+(should be G) Canadian Home Video Rating:14AI have seen Police Story a couple of times now.In my opinion Police Story is Chan's best film from the 80's.He originally made it because he didn't like the other cop film he had to star in which was The Protector.I have not seen the protector so I cant compare.The acting isn't too bad and the plot is pretty good.I don't remember the plot well because I saw this film a while back but what I do remember is this film has lots of great action,stunts and comedy just what a good Chan film needs.If you can find Police Story and you are Chan fan then buy this film! Runtime:106min 9/10


Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out "evil empire", to use flippant Star War terms.So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - "Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of "cinema verite'" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its "honesty" but...Look at the back of the box: "Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a "warm regard"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire." Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash.


This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.*** out of ****


This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)


Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.There are two laughs in HOT ROD.1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.


I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!!


It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10


The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.


ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORYAspect ratio: 1.33:1Sound format: StereoBland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.


I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.


I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. Warning spoilers!!Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10


Although Cameron Grant was clearly hired to replace Andrew Blake over at Ultimate Pictures when the latter started his own company (Studio A), he practically outdid the "Master" right out of the gate when it came to setting up steamy sex scenes. So, while all the window dressing Blake had pioneered (starlets in fetish lingerie and sun glasses, coiffed and made up as if they're about to hit the catwalk) remained very much present and accounted for, Grant added his own personal spin to the carnal content. In doing so, he raised the heat to a level that had eluded Big A ever since his first  and IMHO best  film NIGHT TRIPS. Cam's maiden effort, ELEMENTS OF DESIRE, might still have been handicapped by an overly slavish adherence to the Blake aesthetic (with a surfeit of girl on girl gropes), but his subsequent DINNER PARTY already shows him at the top of his form in what must surely rank as his masterpiece.The title spells out the premise as a group of well to do friends and acquaintances gather over dinner to swap sexy stories, with an extended orgy at the conclusion. Scrumptious Juli Ashton and Tammy Parks smear food stuff all over each other's flawless physiques in their kitchen sequence that is sure to delight those with a taste towards combining pleasures of the palette with those of the flesh. Busty Crystal Gold (here : "Catalina") was rarely more than a reliable second-stringer, adding spice to several Ona Zee bargain basement noirs, yet looks absolutely stunning here in a romantic four poster frolic with Fabio lookalike Vince Voyeur. Beautiful blondes Kylie Ireland and Yvonne, making out with Marc Davis (for the record, the latter two were an item at the time) under a waterfall, complete the eye candy section of the movie.Time to get cooking ! Early Jenna Jameson ("Daisy" back then) foreshadows the greatness to come as she drains Frank Towers ("Mark Slade" on his subsequent shift to the gay side of the industry) of all vital juices, albeit with a little help from brunette Diva for effective contrast, the scene's stylish industrial setting providing an atmospheric backdrop to the full tilt sex taking place. Impossibly hunky construction worker Gerry Pike seeks to cool off on a sweltering summer day by hosing down, a prospect too tantalizing for prim 'n' proper business woman Asia Carrera (at her all time most achingly pretty) to pass up. Best of show must be the imaginative sequence that has nasty Norma Jeane and handsome Sean Michaels teasing the pants off each other  for starters !  while separated by a glass partition right until the predictably splashy conclusion.With sex that proves either artsy or hot, and more often than not both, Grant has concocted a veritable smörgåsbord of fleshy wares to continue the film's gastronomic analogy the title implies. Couples may be the prime intended audience, but an alternation between naughty 'n' nice should rightfully include that "something for everything" recipe so many adult features are aiming for. Acting as his own DoP, the director shows great eye for detail, like the shot of Asia Carrera's pristine white shoes being spattered with mud, enriching his vision. This marks him out as a great filmmaker rather than a merely serviceable one, as was the case with Nick Steele who stepped up to take his place at Ultimate  effectively making him a replacement's replacement ?  when he packed up for greener pastures.


Certainly one of the dozen or so worst movies ever released in any form, featuring a bizarrely abominable performance by Rain Joan of Arc Phoenix (River's sister, inevitably), as Bonanza Jellybean plus inconceivably awful voiceover narration by Tom Robbins, the author of the novel, which had/retains its peculiar sweet/loopy charms.


Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.For those of us in the minority like myself, I found "The Perverts Guide To Cinmea"....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.A little like Scott Mclouds' "Understanding Comics", director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from "The Birds"(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.Why is "The Sound Of Music" kinda fascistic, why is "Short Cuts" about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in "The Birds", what is there to learn about the mind from "Alien Resurrection", what does the planet of "Solaris" want, what does "Psycho" and "The Marx Brothers" have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.The role of the voice in both "The Excorcist" and "Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith", is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than "Reality Of The Virtual", and more direct than "Zizek!", two other pseudo-docs, about "the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism", as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world."The Perverts Guide To Cinema" is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches "how to desire, and not what to desire", and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most "stimulating" movie watching experiences I've ever had.


The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live')


The Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the "When you're as criminal as I" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came from.


I am a big fan of Arnold Vosloo. Finally seeing him as the star of a recent movie, not just a bit part, made me happy.Unfortunately I took film appreciation in college and the only thing I can say that I didn't like was that the film was made in an abandoned part of town and there was no background traffic or lookie loos.I have to say that the acting leaves something to be desired, but Arnold is an excellent actor, I have to chalk it up to lousy direction and the supporting cast leaves something to be desired.I love Arnold Vosloo, and he made the film viewable. Otherwise, I would have written it off as another lousy film.I found the rape scene brutal and unnecessary, but the actors that got away at the end were pretty good. But the sound effects of the shoot-out were pretty bad. There are some glitches in the film (continuity) but they are overlookable considering the low-caliber of the film.All in all I enjoyed the film, because Arnold Vosloo was in it.Jackie


The movie was gripping from start to finish and its b/w photography of the American heartland is stunning. We feel we are right there with them as they cross the big sky country and then into Mexico and back to America again. Near the end of the movie, the reflection of the rain on Robert Blake looks like small rivers of sweat and tears rolling down his face. In the end, we follow them up the stairway to their final moment. The two criminals, performed by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as Perry Smith and Dick Hickock could be seen on any street in any town. Hickock is a smiling boy next door and Smith, the guy with stars in his eyes from the wrong side of town. This point is made in the movie and it always surprises us that criminals are no different in appearance than anyone else. Evil, even the most vile, is part of the human condition. These two delusional men kill an entire family, looking for a safe that isn't there. Once on the run, they start writing bad cheques, carving out a trail for the authorities.There are many fine supporting actors. I like John Forsyth as the detective on the case, Alvin Dewey. Also, Will Geer shines in a brief but excellent scene as the prosecuting attorney.I have often wanted to see this movie all the way through, having only caught it in short snatches; I did finally get to it after buying the DVD. The result is the finest classic crime movie I have ever seen.Don't miss this brilliant movie. To me, this is what great film-making is all about.


I love the movie. It brought me back to the best time of my life. We need that time again, now more than ever. For me it was a time of freedom, learning, and finding myself. I will always miss it. There will never be another time like the 60's, unfortunately.


The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****


Saw this movie the first time while drunk at a motel in Canada. While flipping through channels came across the Easy Lube part. My friend kept flipping but I told him to go back. Something about the name easy lube just didn't sound right. Watched the rest of the movie it was pretty damn funny. Jotted down a couple of names from the credits and got home to look it up. Turned out to be Chevy Chase's first movie. I didn't remember him in it. Didn't remember much about it, so I rented it and gave it a second veiw. It's pretty funny and quite graphic. It's just like Kentucky Fried Movie except not as funny. Love the fingers, easy lube, and I'm da f**kin' president parts. Dealers skit is pretty cool too. I give it a 6.5 or 7 out of ten


The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.Avoid at all costs.


and shot in Vancouver with the 'mountains' of the low country of South Carolina visible in the background. For heaven's sake, they should have reset the location. There are no coastal mountains in South Carolina. Period.Lame visuals. They should have been beautiful. And the story limped along.I really don't understand why it was such a hit as a book, although I have to admit it's one I haven't read as yet. Usually I read the book and give the film a miss. There was nothing in this movie that made me want to buy the book, or even borrow it from the library.Verdict: The Mermaid Chair seemed pretty shallow to moi.


The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900
 using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented  in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on  as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s  and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward  such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative  as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians  a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles  is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England  plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate  who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due  in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman  also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds  and not some wholly distorted version of it  see this film!


Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'! The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation! In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish.


In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set! It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time.


I have not read the other comments on the film, but judging from the average rating I can see that they are unlikely to be very complementary.I watched it for the second time with my children. They absolutely loved it. True, it did not have the adults rolling around the floor, but the sound of the children's enjoyment made it seem so.It is a true Mel Brooks farce, with plenty of moral content - how sad it is to be loved for our money, not for whom we are, and how fickle are our friends and associates. There are many other films on a similar subject matter, no doubt, many of which will have a greater comic or emotional impact on adults. It's hard for me to imagine such an impact on the junior members of the family, however.Hence, for the children, a 9/10 from me.


I stumbled upon this movie on cable and was totally hooked. The story of a group of surfers who ride the big waves, waves that are monstrously huge, waves that would make any rational person run away in terror is a one that manages to be spectacular and make you understand why people spend their lives chasing waves. There is nothing special about the film, other than it brings together some very interesting people who are are in love with what they do and lets them talk. Sure there are scenes of them surfing, but what makes this movie so special is the people. Here are a bunch of guys who are so enthusiastic about what they do that it crosses over to the people watching. Half way into this movie you'll want to go off and learn to surf as well. Few documentaries have ever managed to covey the passion that these people have and its the films ability to make us feel it that makes this a great film. See it.


It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.


Add pure humor + quick and unique sentences + sex + unfaith sex! + love + lies + dark deadly thoughts + secret plans + fun + black humor + sex!.. again! + black dresses! (needed for the unlimited funerals!) = Eglimata!!! Or in English, Crimes!! Our Heroes are two married couples, their relatives, their friends and neighbors. There is Soso and Alekos and Flora and Achilleas, two married couples who have everything but not real love! Flora is the mistress of Alekos, and when Soso finds what's going on, she is planning with her best friend Pepi to kill Alekos and look like an accident! Many plans were made but everyone else dies except Alekos! Achilleas find's out that he has a sister who is a Hooker and tries to put her in the right road..Korina is a temptation to mens but her tries to get married all goes wrong, since when they learn her past, freaks and leave and she ends up marrying a rich farm man. As for the other roles they are like they are from Cartoons! Grandpa Aristidis which fakes that he is paralyzed, Machi is his nurse who is secretly marry to Aristidis for his fortune, Johny, son of Machi, who has it OK with everybody to have all the benefits, Michalakis who has only one purpose in life.. to suicide, but he is unable to do it so he is desperate! Every time, I see the replays and every time when it finishes I miss it.. One of my favorite All time classics...


I caught this movie on IFC and I enjoyed it, although I felt like the editing job was a little rough, though it may have been deliberate. I had a little bit of a hard time figuring out what was going on at first because they seemed to be going for a little bit of a Pulp Fiction-style non-linear plot presentation. It seemed a little forced, though. I certainly think that the movie is worth watching, but I think it could have used a little cleaning up. Some scenes just don't seem to make sense after others. I'm surprised to see the rating here as low as it is. It's not outstanding, but it doesn't have any really serious problems. I gave it a 7/10. The movie did show at least that Laurence Fishburne can act when he wants to. They must have just told him not to in the Matrix movies.


I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!!


I had not seen this movie since the late '80s and decided to pick up the VHS version of it. The plot is very slow, and the actors almost seem robotic in this breakdance flick. The music, hip hop/freestyle artists and the breakdancing scenes are what make this movie special. The breakdancing is actually better in this movie than in "Breakin'", but I have to say that "Breakin' 1&2" carry the energy & excitement to the screen a lot better. It's a movie I will keep in my library, but it's not a movie that I can watch over & over again, just once in a blue moon.


I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.


No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.


Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway).


It's hard to say sometimes why exactly a film is so effective. From the moment I first came across "The Stone Boy", something told me it would be a great film. In spite of that, it seemed very unlikely that I'd ever have the opportunity to actually see it for myself. Then, one day, while looking through the online catalogue of my local library, I saw that they had recently purchased the DVD release of this film. Which I'm extremely glad for, because the cinematography is of a stunning depth and quality that an old VHS copy could never replicate.And speaking of the cinematography, I must single it out as far and above the most stunning aspect of this film. As a photographer who pursues very nearly the exact visual style portrayed in "The Stone Boy", I'm a firm believer in the fact that a great cinematographer can almost single-handedly carry a film. Here, he has a lot of help from an extremely talented cast, and a director who understands perfectly what the story needs. But to have Juan Ruiz Anchía behind the camera makes virtually every scene something of beauty. And you can almost never say that. Most films would never even expect such a thing of you. Scene after scene captures some detail, some little bit of visual magic that takes your breath away.The director, Christopher Cain, has had a long and interesting career. As far as I can gather, this film is not very representative of it. But, sometimes, to catch a director near the beginnings of his career, before all the big budgets and loss of focus, there's a real subtle magic to be found. Cain steps back in this film, lets things happen with a life of their own, and then ever further. Much like early John Sayles films, characters are given space to breathe, time to talk. Side stories happen because they do, and that's how life is. Cain displays a remarkable, raw, even outright painful understanding of human nature in this film.The acting ties much of this story together. When people talk, when they exist in this film, they do so as actual people, not held back by the fact that they are playing characters. Gina Berriault's script allows immensely talented and respected actors like Wilford Brimley, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Frederic Forrest to spend time simply existing. Whether the things they have to say are minor or of deep significance, it all comes down with the weight of pure reality.When you look at the actors involved, or the great soundtrack by James Horner, it seems strange that such a film be very nearly forgotten. Maybe much of what makes "The Stone Boy" what it is was the time period it was made in. There's this 1970s hangover feeling to this picture that reminds me deeply of my own childhood. People talk of the 80s in terms of modern styles and music, but that's not the 80s I lived in or remember. The look of the images, the understated and dark knowing quality of the acting, and the overall result should get under the skin of any person who grew up in or near this era of time in North America. I see myself in this. I see how I saw the world. And a film like "The Stone Boy" sees the world for how it truly is.For more of this feeling, please see:The Black Stallion (1979), Never Cry Wolf (1983), Tender Mercies (1983), Testament (1983), Places in the Heart (1984), Matewan (1987), High Tide (1987), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Secret Garden (1993), The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), Wendy and Lucy (2008)


As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."


Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.


It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.


There were some great moments of reality in there depicting modern day life (not only in Japan, but everywhere). It shows how stifling ones culture can be, and wanting to break out of the mold its created for you.The dancing was just a vehicle for saying "do what you love even if its against the norm". Rather Billy Elliot like I would say. I enjoyed that film as well. The humour was well timed, and the touching moments felt so real, you could feel the awkwardness between Sugiyama and his wife, the tantrums in the dance hall. I loved Aoki - him and that wig and his excessiveness on the dance floor made me simply howl!The actors all did a wonderful job, the story was well written. I watched it a second time and caught some little nuances that I missed on the first viewing. Good entertainment!


I must say as a girl with a cowboy of my own,I love this flick.It left me lovin them boots and wranglers even more.I told my friend about it and she loved it just as much,we were 'bout 13 at the time.I think it's the greatest love story ever told!I own it and never get tired of Bud & Sissy.


'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.


This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.10/10


I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.


It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round.


This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid.


There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since. Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included. So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.


At first i thought that it was just about Eddie Murphy talking to some stupid animals. I was right. Some people called this movie Eddie Murphy's comeback! Who are these people? Jesus if this is the best he can come up with he can just stay away. What was the story again? I was so annoyed by all the lame jokes i forgot. I should have walked out on this one.


****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?


As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.So yes, this movie isn't an "epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!I'd take it over the numerous iterations of "The Flaccid And The Tedious" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10


Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.


Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.


Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher.


If there's one thing you can count on Disney to do, it's their uncanny ability to take a story and tell it again and again and again. Even watching the commercial for Lady and the Tramp II was a horrible experience. Disney's going to ruin one of their most awesome classics ever. It even had that spaghetti meatball scene. It's been done before! And that's what I say to this sorry direct to video(the entire concept should be banned). Everything is just a rehash of the original movie and even several of Bluth's really bad movies. The penguin and walrus duo(I've even forgotten their names) are just a really poor carbon copy of Timon and Pumbaa. Morgana is another Ursula. She even repeats practically all her old lines. The songs are pathetic, really abysmal. I've never heard songs so bad from them before until now. And the dialogue is atrocious. It's pathetic and simplistic. On the plus side, at least they took the time to make the animation somewhat decent. All of the usual characters aren't as annoying as they used to be(or maybe that's a minus for Little Mermaid fans). Back on the negative, Melody is just so sickeningly cute you just might vomit. I almost did. Do yourself and your Little Mermaid fan a favor. Don't waste your money on this. True, it's not as horrific as Return of Jafar or Pocahontas II, but that's little consolation.


I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.--


This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.


"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous."Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.


You don't need to read this review.An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.


I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring. As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story. I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story.


I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones. The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.I recommend "The Sea is Watching" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection.


A young cat tries to steal back his brothers soul from death but only gets half of it and then has to go adventuring to get the other half... or maybe not. Frankly I'm not sure what happens in this film which is full of very strange, very surreal images some of which parents might find disturbing, (ie.the cats slicing off part of a pig who is traveling with them and the frying it like bacon which all three eat).This is a very strange film that some have likened to Hello Kitty on acid, I think its more like Hello Kitty as done by Dali. (Certainly this is more alive than Destino which was directly based on his work).If your up for a very off beat film that will challenge your perceptions of things then see this movie. Just be ready for some very strange images that will be burned into your memory forever.