Datasets:

davidadamczyk

/

subset_imdb-100

like 0

A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in "Breaking Away", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama.

positive

i adore this film as much as any one adores viewing whatever it was they saw when they were young. it was one of those films that Home Box Office showed every other day throughout my youth. this film is forever lodged in my brain. For someone who didn't grow up around this film, you may have become spoiled by the ADD cycle we've been in since the mid-90's and may find it more difficult to appreciate this gem. cool this is, as my sis was doped up on "better off dead" before i saw this (of which i raped & loved)-and no one, NO ONE can deny the embrace of awkward teenage humor in American cinema in the 80's - this gave birth to everything we have found tiresome in teen comedies..because with all the overuse of slow-mo, the current soundtrack, the new tech. I wonder if cinema will go back to these roots... THIS IS the teen comedy...YES!

positive

First off, I'm an American -- I haven't seen any comments on IMDb about this series yet from a U.S. viewer. Secondly, I work in the television business in development. So I wallow in much of the sludge that comes out of American broadcast programming. "Unit One" is an example of television that's a throwback to what I would attribute as '70s-style scripting, feature-wise. Namely, those films made by young autueurs who had free rein to make the dramas feel more realistic and to allow for organic character development. It tacks more along the lines of stellar British dramas like "Cracker" and "Prime Suspect" as well as Australia's brilliant "Underbelly." "Unit One" features stand-alone cases that are committed, then solved, each week. The mysteries aren't extraordinary or particularly byzantine. They usually center around one single twist, clocking in generally at the 40 minute mark, and resolution is neatly wrapped up in the 15 minutes thereafter. What makes this series a breath of fresh air is that it features main characters that you are hooked on and find relatable by episode 2. These are real, breathing, alive characters that have personal baggage, yet it's not a talky, batty type of baggage that American flotsam such as "Grey's Anatomy" or "Desperate Housewives" spoons out. These are realistic individuals whose backstories unfold leisurely over the course of the series, as if you work with them on a daily basis. After the mindless decade of "CSI's," "NCIS's," and "Criminal Minds," along with their subsequent spawns, it's refreshing to actually sit down to watch friends you want to spend time with, as is the case with "Unit One." The quippy banter, the unemotional wooden dialogue, and the over-the-top jeopardy that those American series I mentioned bludgeon us with each week are absurd compared to the nuance and the quiet resonance you get with this remarkable Danish series. I'm on episode 7 of the first season, but I've already bought all four seasons and am in for the long haul. If you need explosions and farcically-hopped up testosterone, along with music by The Who and fast-cutting, neon-lit, jittery palsy-cam action with cipher-like main characters as your main diet of television drama viewing, I suggest you stay away from this series. If you are an adult with a hunger for subtle, poignant, thoughtful and, yes, sometimes straight-forward procedural crime dramas, I urge you to check this show out.

positive

I'm very surprised that so many people don't like this movie. I think it's a lot better than most of the teen films that have come out recently - Ten Things I Hate About You ( can we say teeny bopper film and what was with the principle writing those porno novels ? ), Cruel Intentions ( where a character gives up their virginity because of a fun car ride ), and She's All That ( mediocre ). If your looking for something that's just fun - I say go with Never Been Kissed. My mom loved it and she hates movies ( one of her favorites is BEACHES ). This is a great fantasy about what you would do different if you could go back to high school. People who were outcasts in high school will probably like this movie better. It reminds me of 'Romy and Michele's High School Reunion'. And the ending puts me in the best mood. Sure the plot has been done, but how many recent movies can you honestly say haven't been done in one form or another. The cast is also charming. And for those who think Drew can't be geeky - she pulls it off just great. Another good teen comedy that I recommend which was made recently is ELECTION but it's more of a satire on school and politics.

positive

One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple," Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy/Killjoy 2" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the "set" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says "CHILD" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this "film" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move.

negative

Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.<br /><br />But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.<br /><br />One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.

positive

What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations

negative

Saw this last night at the 7th Annual NYC Home Film Festival -- a rather tumultuous venue that quieted down for this sweet and touching two-woman film.<br /><br />The relationship between the two -- one, older and blind, the other, a twenty- something who helps her with her mail -- is established deftly, and its depth is readily apparent.<br /><br />There are no car chases, explosions, or mind-boggling special effects -- just the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of humans reaching out toward each other to help and be helped.<br /><br />See if it you can!

positive

***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada

negative

The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.<br /><br />The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.<br /><br />What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid.

positive

This film moved me at age 39 in the same way that all the footage and coverage of Dogtown affected me when I was 13. For all of those who criticized the self promotion of the Z boys interviewed, they have the last laugh on you. That was their whole deal, "we're better than all of you and here's why....(insert footage of the smoothest pool carve imaginable)" This was a film to tell their story and that was their story whether you like it or not. It was THEIR opinion of their skating that mattered..... not yours or mine. I thought the film captured their attitude and influence exactly as I remembered it in the 70's. The reality is that they DID revolutionize skateboarding, they WERE the impetus behind extreme sports and they DID inject a cultural paradigm that reached into every corner of americana. This movie gave rebirth to images of Bertleman on a wave and Alva and Jay Adams ripping up the coping that WAS the California Dream to an entire culture of young american teenagers that just wanted to have fun and get rad! As I watched this film I realized that it was these images that I lived with every day until I was old enough to move out and back down to So Cal after my family had moved to Nor Cal when I was five. Until I could get back, my buddies and I built and thrashed ramp after ramp, searched for every empty pool possible and mimicked everything Stecyk covered about these guys. We are all educated and have family's and careers now but this film reminds me who I was at that age and why I still surf. This is an inspired film that anyone who has an interest in pop culture, extreme sports, the 70's or even just good documentary film making will enjoy completely. Whenever it comes on cable I can't change the channel. Kudos to Stacy Peralta for making a beautiful piece of art!

positive

First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.<br /><br />I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.<br /><br />If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.

negative

Yes, it is a bit cheesy. But it's suspenseful and entertaining, and one of my favorites; there are some excellent actors in the film, and they do a commendable job given the limitations of plot and characters. It's interesting to see David Soul in a 'bad guy' role; I thought he was quite believable--and rather chilling--as the ever-more-paranoid CO. Robert Conrad is a long-time favorite--I think he brings his character to life very well; and Sam Waterston has been star quality in everything of his I've watched--movies or TV. <br /><br />I watch this movie every so often but our tape (a VHS TV copy I got) is such poor quality it's difficult to fully enjoy it. This is a movie I think they should put out on DVD; maybe it wouldn't be universally sought after, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me out there who like this sort of film so there WOULD be a market for a DVD version. I'll keep hoping!

positive

SPOILERS<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />*<br /><br />This is Tenchi?<br /><br />This is not Tenchi.<br /><br />Practically everyone is written horribly out of character ... When it comes to characterization, the only bright spot is the friendship between Ayeka and Ryoko.<br /><br />Also, the villainess is not punished for her actions, which amount to mind-control rape. If a male villain had done to one of the women what Haruna does to Tenchi, then he would have (rightfully so) painfully bought it at the end of the movie, dying horribly, and the audience would have cheered. But not only does Haruna pay no price for her crimes, Ryoko actually FORGIVES and UNDERSTANDS her actions. No! The real Ryoko would have disintegrated her for what Haruna had done to her beloved Tenchi; the audience I saw this with, myself included, all booed audibly at this scene<br /><br />Anime fans, avoid this movie. Tenchi fans, avoid this movie even harder.

negative

I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.

negative

One cannot help but admire Mike Judge for his hands on "I've experienced that" approach. With "Office Space", almost anyone working a job could associate with the characters. "Idiocracy" has exactly the same feel to it. One can easily appreciate the 505 years later experience of our heroes, because again, the director has tried to put things on a very human level. Somewhat similar to Woody Allen's "Sleeper", this movie is very funny. Do not miss the deleted scenes as the "Museum Of Fart" is a classic. Imaginative comedy is a rarity, and "Idiocracy" is wildly imaginative, extremely funny, and a solid 8.0 movie experience. - MERK

positive

Errol Flynn's roguish charm really shines through in this entertaining and exciting, but historically bankrupt biopic of the famous (and some would say infamous) General Custer, that follows his career from his first day at West Point, through the Civil War and out west to the battle at The Little Big Horn, all the while butting heads with rival Arthur Kennedy and romancing pretty Olivia de Havilland.<br /><br />Some might say that Flynn, who delivers a great, flamboyant performance as the general, is basically playing himself playing Custer!<br /><br />A lavish production (that should have been in Technicolor) well directed by Raoul Walsh, They Died With Their Boots On features some truly well-staged battle sequences. Also, it's a real treat to see Anthony Quinn playing Crazy Horse.<br /><br />The previous year, Flynn played Jeb Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's George Custer in Santa Fe Trail (also with de Havilland), another action-packed Warner Brothers production designed to make you fail history class!

positive

i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it... <br /><br />much better than any war in the stars...<br /><br />there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force

positive

In The Ring, it was a videotape; a website was the problem in Feardotcom; the danger in Pulse came from computers; and Phone and One Missed Call featured—you guessed it—deadly phones. In Stay Alive, the piece of technology that causes all manner of problems is an online game: those who play it wind up dead soon afterwards. How clever!<br /><br />Directed by William Brent Bell (who?), and featuring an unimpressive cast of twenty-somethings that you might have seen before, but probably can't remember where or what the hell their names are, this is an extremely derivative piece of film-making aimed squarely at the PG-13 horror set; seasoned scary film watchers will no doubt find Stay Alive extremely tedious, highly predictable and not in the least bit frightening.<br /><br />The poorly developed plot follows a group of gamers with extremely daft names (October, Loomis, Phineus, Hutch, and Swink!?!) who attempt to unravel the mystery behind the deadly game before they too become victims. Eventually, they discover that it is the evil spirit of the legendary Countess Elizabeth Bathory who is killing anyone who dares to play, and that their only hope of survival is to continue with the game to the end.<br /><br />With a story as dumb as this, viewers should expect a film with loose ends aplenty, not one iota of logic (who made the game, how, and why is never explained), very little in the way of scares or gore, and a dumb closing scene to leave the door open for—God forbid—a sequel.

negative

I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.<br /><br />Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.<br /><br />The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.

negative

What can I say? You expect only the best in drama from the BBC and MESSIAH is not an exception to the rule.<br /><br />MESSIAH is a great thriller, a truly shocking and creepy tale about a serial killer who cuts out victims' tongues and replaces them with silver spoons. Police Officer Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott) and his team have the task of trying to solve the mystery of the seemingly random events, before more lives are lost.<br /><br />But be warned - despite it's '15' rating (in the UK), MESSIAH is a bit of a gruesome film. Some of the murder scenes are similar to those in SE7EN, and one or two can be really stomach-churning. But if you can withstand that, sit back in your chair and enjoy... although you'll most likely be on the edge of it or hiding behind it.<br /><br />Rated '15' by the BBFC for moderate violence and strong horror.

positive

A wonderful story that should be seen by all families. The story, acting, and production values are all first rate. I highly recommend "Checking Out!"<br /><br />Peter Falk is marvelous as an aging actor who wants to decide when he will die, so he can continue to know how things will end and not be "a member of the audience." His three children rush to New York to confront him and try to change his mind. There are, of course unresolved family issues to be addressed, and the script and actors handle them well and with great humor. <br /><br />The story is about a Jewish family, but it could easily be about any other family. Well, maybe not a WASP family. The siblings have issues with each other and also with their father. I loved the writing and directing, as well as the acting. All in all, a humorous and touching film.

positive

Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn´t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it´s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.

negative

Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.

negative

The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.

negative

This was one of the most contrived, tedious and clichéd films I have ever seen... and, yes, I've seen Pearl Harbour. Even the likes of Gina McKee couldn't act their way out of the appalling dialogue. It has been described as 'art-house', this can only be a euphemism for dull, dreadful and, quite frankly, artless. Why is it that when a film is devoid of plot, critics feel it deserves to be called art? But far more baffling, why did America love it? Without you, this film would have remained on the shelf where, perhaps, it belonged.

negative

Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.<br /><br />However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.

negative

I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.<br /><br />One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.<br /><br />The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.<br /><br />Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.

negative

I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!

negative

When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in "thrills," cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try "Child's Play," instead.

negative

Dolemite is awesome. Rudy Ray Moore's rhymin kung fu pimp with horrible choreographed action sequences is about as close as you can get to becoming a spoof of a genre without actually being spoof. Citizen Kane this may not be nor Les Infant Au Revoir, but this is undoubtedly genius in it's own right. The production values in this movie are so bad they could qualify as existential special effects. The plot drags a little in the middle but the power of such a cheap premise as kung fu hookers is enough to bring all but the snootiest film lovers through. The infamous ever present boom mike evokes shades of the gloriously incompetent Ed Wood and never grows unfunny. I sometimes wonder if the boom mike was left in on purpose as commentary on the ridiculous aspects of movies in general but i usually get distracted by erotic scenes that lack eroticism to the point of high art mundanacity. Everything is this movie is alive and breathing, dripping with desperate longing to be simultaneously loved and reviled. It works.<br /><br />9 out of 10

positive

This film gets off to a bad start. An incredibly corny monologue is followed immediately by a brilliantly-done, truly amazing spaceship crash. Then things go downhill again, as you realize that the survivors are all a) bad actors (apart from the docking pilot and the psychopath) and b) almost all of them fit too nicely into the role of monster-fodder. Hell, half of them don't even speak English, preventing the audience from getting to know the characters at all. You feel as if you were watching "Deep Blue Sea" meets "Silence of the Lambs", minus the good bits. And unfortunately, the entire thing tries to hard to be "Crashed on a desert planet with Hannibal Lecter" during the daylight scenes. Vin Diesel is a great actor - but he is no Anthony Hopkins, and he frankly annoys as the smart hyper-cool psycho. There is at least one very good scene involving an unexpected survivor - but apart from that you could just as well have cut out the first thirty minutes or so...<br /><br />But then things take a turn. I can't exactly pinpoint the moment, but soon the movie gets a lot better. It also feels less chopped - the scenes actually begin to follow each other with a consistent narrative, and Vin Diesel becomes much less annoying and soon he is a show-stealer. By the time the first monsters appear, the film is actually quite enjoyable. By the time night falls, it is great. Thrilling, horrifying and exciting. And even the character development of most main characters is well-done. If you can just sit through the poor bits at the start you're in for some GREAT entertainment. <br /><br />Besides, the visuals are eye-candy, and I honestly admit: I love the colour and the tone of this movie. <br /><br />7/10 (could have been 9/10, if only....)

positive

Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.<br /><br />This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.<br /><br />We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.<br /><br />But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.<br /><br />It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.<br /><br />For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.<br /><br />When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in.

positive

How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.<br /><br />But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague

negative

What a film. Quite possibly the best I've ever seen, the Direction, the Production,the score and the cinematography,absoloutley wonderful. The acting is also excellent, and the Man/Robot scenes have to be seen to be belieived. I can not recommend this film enough. Get it out on video now, turn the lights down and enjoy.

positive

This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.<br /><br />We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.

negative

I first saw this movie on an Alaska Airlines flight, and have since seen it twice more. It simply is -- and is simply -- one of the best films in years. I found myself having enjoyed it after my first viewing, but a little cloudy on what had happened. After seeing it again a few weeks later, things began to fall into place. It wasn't confusing, just deep. In fact, the depth of the movie may not be appreciated for a long time. For example, it occurred to me only after my third viewing that Sammy Davis Jr Jr (Grandfather's dog) is more than just a pet -- perhaps she's the stand-in for his dead wife. Witness how fiercely he protects her. There is symbolism galore, and none of it sappy or indulgent, just real. The adventure of their trip keeps the story-line in perpetual motion, and even when they arrive, you're not sure if it really was the destination. As the movie continues, so does the adventure and I got the sense the destination was merely a way-point. The sound-track is fun, the scenery compelling -- and both decidedly eastern-block. I could go on and on about the deeper meanings within the film, but I'm not entirely sure I've discovered all the nuances yet. Besides, it's more fun to tease these out yourself. As much as any film can be, "Everything Is Illuminated" has proved to be like a fine wine that sweetens with time. I highly recommend seeing it -- twice.

positive

This film is the best kung fu film of all time. Although there is not wire-work and special effects like those used in Crouching Tiger, this movie uses ingenuity and creative camera-work to create memorable fighting moments, and the fight scenes are well choreographed and tight. There is a ton of action in this film with lots of great fight scenes, but the story is very good too,with lots of twists and turns. The characters are well rounded and have real depth to them, as the motivations for their actions and personality are revealed in a much greater detail than most kung fu films. There is some really great camera-work in the film, with my favorite shot starting as a close up on our hero's face showing his reaction, then pulls back quickly to reveal the scene before him that is the cause of his look. Originally, I bought the movie to hoping see some great fight scenes, but upon multiple viewings I learned how terrific the acting and story were as well. Overall, a great film.

positive

I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.<br /><br />This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.<br /><br />There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.<br /><br />The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.<br /><br />We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.<br /><br />This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.<br /><br />The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..<br /><br />Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_

negative

This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.<br /><br />In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).<br /><br />STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).

negative

I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful.

positive

I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.<br /><br />On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?

negative

Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was somewhat reluctant to watch "Golden Earrings." The idea of a 40-something Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies, it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen Dietrich play a "good" woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human character.<br /><br />Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable, optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying.

positive

I can't really remember any details of this movie except that the setting looked awfully familiar. Then I realized it was filmed at the Lazy Lizard Hostel in Moab, Utah. That was one of my favorite places to visit when I was younger and wandered around the country. The guy who owns/manages the hostel managed to get himself in the movie. All I remember about the plot of the movie is that it involves jeeps and naked women. It is great to watch just for the scenery (I mean the rock formations)... If you are just looking for soft-core porn, you will probably be better served elsewhere. I don't even know if this movie is available on tape or DVD.

negative

I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.<br /><br />Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.

negative

I once heard this movie described as either you'll love it or you'll hate it. From reading some of the other reviews and the ratings, I would venture to say that this is true. I am placing myself in the hate it crowd. I have seen some truly bad movies, boring movies, and even low budget movies. This movie is bad on all three fronts.<br /><br />This Island Earth's Exeter (Jeff Morrow), returns to his sci-fi/b-movie roots as Dr. Les (minus giant head prosthetic). The doctor and his assistant Arnie (George O'Hanlon - aka the voice of George Jetson), along with Les' girlfriend assistant Vera, are tracking a meteor. This is the crux of the cast and is almost a double date. Les has Vera and Arnie has his "Susie" (Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor - aka the computer). Lets just say the relationship between George and his robotic maid, Rosie, (and his relationship with "Susie") is more believable than the cold, clam-like feelings Vera has for Les (and vice versa). The object of their all their interest is no ordinary meteor, however. It is really an alien art nouveau/art deco energy storage device, which moves around like a 3 legged dog. There is also the little alien "energy" being that controls Dr. Hubbel (aka, the chief scientist there). The alien is obviously and from the get-go, malicious and evil. Is this the kind of science we are handing out? No wonder the aliens from the Explorers were afraid of us. From watching some of these movies, we shoot first. There's no need for questions afterwards. <br /><br />The whole movie is synonymous with watching some really boring science experiments, like boiling an egg or adding food color to celery. Its not the fact that this is a low budget sci-fi movie or thats its a bit cheesy and outdated. It is really, really, really boring. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what is going on. That is it. Most of the things we learn about what's going on are through monologues and self dictation. Now add crappy dialog, cardboard acting and cheap-sets and you have the makings of an Ed Wood clone (by the way, Ed has made some really boring movies as well - please avoid the Orgy of the Dead). The dialog ... oh, the dialog. Jems such as :<br /><br />"..from under 2 miles of ocean ?<br /><br />Why not ?! It came through a billion miles in space."<br /><br />or<br /><br />"Do you think you'll be able to respect a husband who's probably pulled the scientific boner of all time ?"<br /><br />This movie is obviously trying to pull a Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Magnetic Monster or in the same light as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. Namely, a low budget sci-fi movie (or TV episode) that is compelling enough to get past the technical difficulties and strange situations. At the core, these movies are enjoyable on some level (the story, the underlying meaning or the sheer comical nature of the dialog or situations). This movie has none of that. It is just 90 minutes of boredom. I couldn't even enjoy this on a Ed Wood level. I definitely recommend skipping this one and seeing one of the movies I mentioned above instead. It is so bad, that if my name was Dr. Forrester, I would never think of showing this movie to anyone ... except Frank maybe.

negative

Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and one 4. <br /><br />"This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia," we're told. "On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten." <br /><br />Davos was a top gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark. <br /><br />This somewhat cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and who reacts with violence and resignation. <br /><br />Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens. Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was 27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose, under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal. The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear Davos say, "Abel's gone. There's nothing left." It would be well worth watching Classe tous Risques to learn what he means. <br /><br />There are many fine French gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of Shadows.

positive

Do not miss this picture that defies ages. With no hesitation, a masterpiece. Not only the script and the music but also choregraphy, casting,<br /><br />cut : everything contributes to the perfect achievement. Now nearly 25 years ago and still amazing of maturity, art and<br /><br />sensitivity. Available now in DVD, do not miss either. The transfert is perfect<br /><br />and the sound re-boosted. One mystery remains about this superb work : why the actors did<br /><br />not succeed better after this flashing start ?

positive

Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.

negative

I just finished watching Marigold today and I'll begin by saying that I found this DVD on the shelves of Blockbuster. While strolling around looking for something new and good to watch, the picture of Ali Larter caught my attention.<br /><br />After drooling over Ali Larter, I picked up the cover and continued to glance around the cover. From the looks of it, I thought the costumes were a bit over the top. And then I saw the other Indians on the cover and figured this was some kind of spoof film or something like that.<br /><br />When I flipped over the the synopsis part and saw Salman Khan, I did a double take. Salman Khan in an American film with Ali Larter in a DVD at Blockbuster? Because Salman Khan is to Bollywood films like Mel Gibson is to Hollywood films, I had very high expectations for this film: it HAD to be good! I am very pleased to say that Marigold is a phenomenal film! It far exceeded any and all of my personal expectations!<br /><br />I suppose a film like this is what happens when you have a decent script, a talented, experienced, knowledgeable and goal oriented director, two incredible actors playing the lead roles and just a very hard working supporting cast and crew! Khan and Larter appear to have really great chemistry together and both shine on the big screen: they look really good together. The musical numbers weren't bad at all, which was surprising, considering how cheesy and long Indian films' musicals are these days. And you'll be happy to know that the Indian costumes are very far from being cheesy as you'll get.<br /><br />The beginning of the film was kind of slow, the middle was really good, the scenes leading to the climax were pretty dramatic, but the ending was just awesome! I have a few gripes and complaints about the DVD, however. While I loved the widescreen aspect ratio of the DVD, I didn't like the fact that several other things were left out of the DVD. For starters, there are no subtitles. Now English being my first language, it's not a problem. However, when some of the Indian actors and actresses spoke, it was (at times) difficult to understand what they were saying; captioning would have helped.<br /><br />Another thing that I would have appreciated on the DVD would be a blooper reel or some kind of collection of outtakes. And lastly, how about a menu feature that would allow us to skip right to the musical numbers? Man, some of those songs were really good! On the flip side, I throughly enjoyed watching the making of Marigold.<br /><br />I have tons more to say regarding the awesomeness of this film and how much I liked it, but I don't have the time nor do I want to keep on writing why I enjoyed it so much. I hope that Salman Khan does more English films in addition to his Hindi films and I certainly hope this Hindi film will not be Ali Larter's last Bollywood film. And I encourage the director to continue making Bollywood film hybrids featuring Salman Khan, Ali Larter and other big name actors - just make sure the scripts are original and good.<br /><br />10/10 - this is just a great love story film that your entire family can enjoy!

positive

Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.<br /><br />And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.<br /><br />This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself "maybe he isn't THAT bad.". But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.<br /><br />Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.

negative

Well the plot is entertaining but it is full of goof. To summarize things up, cop/dad badly wants to save his son from cancer but the only way is by getting the transplant from the criminal(Michael Keaton).<br /><br />well criminal agrees BUT escaped in the hospital while the transplant was going on and the police and the cop-dad is not allowed to shoot at the criminal in order to save his son. (dead criminal-no transplant-dead son).<br /><br />well, the police in this movie doesn't have a brain, in case they never heard of a TAZER to knock off the criminal without killing him. end of movie, as simple as that.<br /><br />But it when all crazy and stupid including the death of 2cops and a few doctor getting burned up pretty badly.

negative

"Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!" [Harry Crystal]<br /><br />Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).<br /><br />With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!<br /><br />Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... "You're hooked, kid!" [Harry Crystal]

positive

This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.

positive

Nice way to relax. I am packing my suitcase now so I can go and be with Caroline Munroe. Phony monsters and scenery make for 89 minutes of harmless fun. Something you can enjoy with your family and not be offended.

positive

I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.<br /><br />But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.

negative

The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.

negative

I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.

negative

It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.<br /><br />As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.<br /><br />That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it.

positive

Allegedly the "true story" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as "The Handsome" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar López de Ayala in the title role – though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent – just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no "actress" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it.

negative

I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero.

positive

To the guy who hatched the idea for Lifeforce I have one thing to say: Thank you, sir! Lifeforce combines the big-budget sci-fi pomp of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with the cheap horror thrills of Phantasm and tops it all off with t-ts-- and some real meaty hangers at that..And best of all, it's actually a good movie! It amazes me that someone actually justified a mainstream movie that is a vehicle for a hot chick to appear naked on screen for an hour and a half to producers. God bless you, all of you who were involved.<br /><br />Steve Railsback (Helter Skelter) plays Col. Carlson, the American commander of an international space mission sent to investigate Halley's Comet. Carlson's crew finds an alien vessel inside the comet and inside that they find three naked people in suspended animation--two guys and a hot broad (Mathilda May). Well, to make a long story short, they're "space vampires"...naked "space vampires." They trash the crew except for Col. Blueballs who decided that he had to let the hot chick out of her lucite display case because the part of his brain that controls his nut fluids told him it was the right thing to do. The Col. wings it back to our big blue ball in an escape pod. Meanwhile, another space shuttle crew has discovered his ship floating dead in space and has brought the three space coffins of the Living Dead Martians back to London. And that's when people start turning into pork rinds and s--t in general just starts getting' way out of hand too damn fast.<br /><br />Carlson teams up with the unflappable Col. Caine (Peter Firth) of the British S.A.S. to track down our naked cutie--who is having one hell of a time sucking guys off left and right. Carlson's discovered that he has a mental link with Vampira that allows them to track her down, with the ultimate goal being to blow her ass away and wreck her and her pals' big space umbrella that sucks up the energy of the people that the vamps attack. Will they succeed in time? MINOR SPOILER: Yes.<br /><br />Wow. What can I say but "Wow"? This damn movie really works. I can't believe they got actual British actors like Aubrey Morris (A Clockwork Orange) and Patrick Stewart (Sexiest Man Alive or some such title) to appear in this film. All the actors are good. Direction is good and really shines during the last half where we see the fantastic devastation of London. Special effects are no slouch either. For 1985, this movie must've been the s--t as far as fx goes. All the effects are fairly impressive and there's a wide range of talent on display here in animotronics, makeup effects, light shows, and very nice space scenes with some good old-fashioned modeling and matte painting--very nicely done. There's even some gore and bloody squib shots for all the horror fanboys out there.<br /><br />Lifeforce is a great film for anyone who has nostalgia for when popular films on the bigsceen were made with 100% love from start to finish. The creators of the movie really made sure all the bases were covered and the end result is a phenomenally fun affair that doesn't let you turn away because the proceedings are just too good-looking. Real solid entertainment here: 8 1/2 out of 10.

positive

I can't see how a film of this quality only gets an average of 5.7 from IMDb voters. It's a classic Australian production that resembles recent efforts such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES, THE SUGAR FACTORY, OCCASIONAL COARSE LANGUAGE, RUSSIAN DOLL, SAMPLE PEOPLE, THE SECRET LIFE OF US, LA SPAGNOLA, STRANGE PLANET, FRESH AIR, DUST OFF THE WINGS, DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE, etc..., as a 19-year-old uni student (Newton, in perhaps his best role yet, on par with CHANGI at least) with a bored, over-religious mother gets the shock of his life when she decides to enrol in the same course as him - and before you go thinking ANOTHER GOOFY MOVIE, it's not, there's some real substance here. Sure, it's a simplistic view of life in general and arts students in particular (but then they are rather simplistic under all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo aren't they?), and maybe the study of Sinead Cusack's character is a little muddled at times, but the film is bright, funny, and has some important messages. The principle cast is terrific: Cusack and Newton are wonderful, and Rose Byrne (see her also in THE GODDESS OF 1967) is so underrated it's not funny. She's a beautiful, fresh, confident actor who deserves every accolade she receives. I gave MY MOTHER FRANK 8/10.

positive

Let me get this out of the way before I trash this film: I love Park Chan-Wook's work as a director. While I disagree with the masses saying he's is the best director working in our time, I can't deny that he understands how to use a camera very effectively. I really liked one of his other films, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, Min-sik Choi's acting was the only thing that allowed me to take this film seriously . . . for 1/5 of the runtime, that is.<br /><br />Now the bad: The plot is simply the oldest cliché used in cinema/literature. I'll never understand how critics can trash a Hollywood blockbuster for being cliché, then hail movies like Oldboy which are just as unoriginal and clichéd if not even more so. Regardless, Oldboy is flat-out one of the most generic, unoriginal movies ever conceived. *Spoilers* Man is held captive, man seeks revenge, man finds out he had sex with a family member, man's life is over. *End spoilers* Simply put, this plot line has been used in everything from Greek plays to modern melodramatic soap operas and countless movies/books in between. It is so melodramatic and unoriginal when the major reveal happens, I laughed out loud. Does that mean I'm a desensitized freak without emotions as some reviews of this film say about people like me? No. What it means overdone plots make people laugh. The Scary Movie franchise proved that, and Oldboy proved it as well. Why can't people think of something that is truly disturbing instead of just spewing out tried clichés masked with fancy camera-work and classical music? That brings up the issue of blood/gore. Simply put, it isn't there. The director is too timid to even point the camera at the screen when something "gory" happens, as if we're watching a children's movie or something. Maybe we were. Anyway, I've heard Oldboy called the "most brutal movie of all time" and "the most disturbing movie ever" but when I watched it I failed to see ANYTHING even remotely gory or disturbing. All the "gore" is off-screen, and even then the violence level is nothing you haven't seen in PG-13 movies like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale before. Why this even got an R-rating confuses me, much less "the most brutal movie of all time". Seriously, I've seen movies that just make Oldboy look cute on every level when it comes to violence/gore.<br /><br />The other huge glaring, cheesy flaw is the main villain. The majority of his screen time he's showing his bare butt off for the audience in comedic American Pie-style, but I'm supposed to think he's oh-so-evil? When he's wearing clothes, his hair is slicked back like a bad Asian mix of the cheesiest James Bond villain mixed with something out of Austin Powers. He talks like a brain-dead teenager recovering from an acid overdose, and his dialogue is so bad it had me laughing yet again. Seriously, Oldboy had me laughing more than any comedy this year . . .<br /><br />In the end, Oldboy is for those of you who sip fine wine, have no sense of humor, and talk about how boring your lives are at dinner parties. It's for those people who are so stuck up in their own ego they forgot how unoriginal they are, and consequently forgot how unoriginal and boring the "films" (never "movies") they enjoy are.<br /><br />To those people all I can say is this: I like "films" and also like "movies". I like thoughtful dramas that actually say something about the human condition, and I also like pointless action movies that thrill me into a coma. But the thing is, for me to like both "films" and "movies", they have to be original. They have to be something I haven't seen so many times I lost count of the number of times the plot has been used. When something isn't original, it's expendable. If it does exactly what everyone else does, it's forgettable and boring. Before you give Oldboy yet another perfect rating because it "touched" you, maybe you should think about something: wouldn't a movie equally as touching, but at the same time original make you think more? I just wish someone other than me would understand this.<br /><br />Overall: Oldboy is forgettable and cheesy.<br /><br />1/10

negative

This is a quirky heist/caper film, one that seems predictable at first then keeps surprising until the last scene. The protagonist is a grifter who goes to work in a little carnival, where he's paid to kill the manager's belly dancer wife Divana then ends up falling for her himself. She's alluring, tricky and deadly and she keeps disappearing and popping up again like some sort of magician's trick. The film's other props include her duplicitous husband/employer (played by the talented Armand Assante), some nasty Dominican mobsters and most important to the plot, a suitcase full of money. Just like the old "shell game," the one where you have to guess which one the pea's under, you'll be guessing who's got the money, and like the victims of the hucksters who run such games, you'll probably guess wrong. Dagma Dominczyk, as lovely Divana, is a talented performer and an eyeful, whether she's dancing with the huge snake around her shoulders or working her grift on all the unfortunate men in her orbit. Norman Reedus is fine as the young con who is flummoxed by the elusive beauty he was paid to kill. Don't count him out, however, for he turns out to be smarter than anyone gave him credit for. This oddball film is worth a look.

positive

From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.<br /><br />Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.<br /><br />These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead. <br /><br />Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.<br /><br />Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with cliché characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.<br /><br />Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere. <br /><br />But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.<br /><br />The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.<br /><br />The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.<br /><br />Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece. <br /><br />Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.<br /><br />But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:<br /><br />"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence."<br /><br />And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

negative

I loved this movie!<br /><br />Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social, political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movie served that purpose.<br /><br />I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. At the time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick were advanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine by way of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like when people do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they have done it to me.<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Angela Bennett/Ruth Marx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who has the courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keep her sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom she loves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attempt to bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a stranger added a poignant touch of reality.<br /><br />The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kind problem.

positive

A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists "invading" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.<br /><br />Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer / director / co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes. <br /><br />As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.<br /><br />The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead.

negative

I just saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the "kid's-film" label on it, "Klatretösen" ("Climber Girl") is on almost every account a classic (as in "biblical")! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and "Klatretösen" is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the "action". After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:<br /><br />- effortlessly puts "mission impossible" to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)<br /><br />- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )<br /><br />- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives<br /><br />- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds<br /><br />- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here<br /><br />- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)<br /><br />- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years "Mirakel" is everybody's favourite kid actor<br /><br />What a ride!

positive

This movie possesses something most other movies of its genre do not: intelligence and good messages. Accepted, is the story of a kid named Bartleby (Justin Long) who gets rejected by every college he applies to. His parents are incredibly strict, frustrated and disappointed. So, Bartleby and a few other students who face similar problems start a fake college, to pawn themselves off to their parents as college kids. Not everything goes to plan, and the movie is about them winging it. But behind this plot which sounds ridiculous, there are good messages, morals and a new outlook on the American educational system. The college they create "South Harmon Institute of Technology" accepts those who did not get accepted anywhere else. The message is that you do not need "money, tradition, or fancy books- you just need a desire to better yourself." they are a completely unorthodox school, but what the movie teaches is that thats still OK- and different (whether its a person or a school) is not necessarily bad, and that every one no matter should be given the chance to better themselves- despite whether they are 'weird.' its a message of non-comformity and has traces of anti-authority sprinkled in as well. But not only are messages great- its hilarious! haha i laughed very hard. the humor can be subtle but can also be blatant as well, and is a great mix. Fraternities beware.

positive

Inside I'm Dancing (Rory O'Shea Was Here)is the story of two handicapped young men, Rory O'Shea, who is almost completely immobilized and confined to wheelchair, and Michael Connelly who is debilitated by MS and also confined to a wheelchair.<br /><br />Set in Ireland, the film opens with Rory arriving at a assisted living center. He eventually befriends Michael but only after a few tense scenes where Rory rebels against the staff and other patients in the usual "movie way" playing loud metal music, using profanity, and general obnoxiousness. His budding friendship with Michael is cemented by the fact that Rory seems to be the only one who understands Michael, or is at least willing to try.<br /><br />Eventually, through some trial and tribulation the pair petition, and are granted, the right to live own their own in specially adapted apartment. The apartment is paid for by Michael's father who had essentially abandoned him do to his disability. The two also hire an attractive assistant named Siobhan (played by Romola Garai)to help them with their day to day living. This is essentially where the crux of the film develops as both develop feelings for her. Michael is struck particularly hard. Unfortunately, for both, but Michael especially, Siobhan does not feel the same and it results in her having to leave. As Michael temporarily regresses and wants to return to the Asst. Living Center, Rory convinces him to continue to live on his own. The film ends on a sad note, that many viewers may have seen coming, but ultimately, we are left feeling that Michael has truly become independent and the future is his, as Rory pointed out to him towards the end of movie.<br /><br />You know, I can't say that I've seen a lot of "handicapped films" and I don't know if they could be considered a specific genre. But there is a type of formula to them. One person is unwilling to live beyond his illness until some liberating force compels him/her to do so and Inside I'm Dancing is really know different. What works however, is it probably is more subtle about the peaks and valleys the two men go through then what you might expect. There are no intentionally gratuitous moments and no "stand up and cheer" manipulations. The sad parts are sad and the funny parts are funny. Some viewers might recoil a bit that Rory is the spiky haired punk type with the earing in his nose as the too perfect "rebel" cliché, but the actor, James McAvoy, somehow makes it real. The same can be said for Steven Robertson, who plays Michael. When Michael's heart is broken it doesn't seem to be invoked by a poor script trying to get the audience worked up, but rather a young man genuinely in pain over unrequited love. The kind of pain many can relate to whatever their physical condition. Again, these are the types of things that make the film work and make it poignant without being overbearing and enjoyable on many levels.<br /><br />Recommended.

positive

It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.<br /><br />Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.<br /><br />The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.<br /><br />The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.<br /><br />Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.<br /><br />Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.<br /><br />I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.<br /><br />Time for another Lemsip, I think.

negative

I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.<br /><br />I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).<br /><br />I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.<br /><br />Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)

negative

This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.<br /><br />With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.<br /><br />The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.

negative

Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.<br /><br />This film is not jaw-droppingly "oh my god it's so bad it's good" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his "friend", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.<br /><br />The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.<br /><br />Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.<br /><br />D

negative

When this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out "MOOSEHEART" at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.<br /><br />I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.

negative

Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.<br /><br />Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.

negative

When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting – be it swordplay or fisticuffs – and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.<br /><br />"Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.<br /><br />Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.<br /><br />Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.<br /><br />I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'

negative

Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag "The Latin Godfather". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like "The Latin Godfather", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.

negative

A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.<br /><br />This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clichés, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . "Have you seen Scream 3?", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and/or atmospheric horror.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.<br /><br />- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.<br /><br />- Mystery: None at all, really.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.<br /><br />- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.' <br /><br />Final verdict: 7/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.<br /><br />-AP3-

positive

A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?<br /><br />The answer become less clear as the film goes on.<br /><br />Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.<br /><br />This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.<br /><br />Chris Rock – though as foul-mouthed as usual – is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.<br /><br />There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz' – then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, ‘Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having ‘a whole Doris Day thing going on.'<br /><br />This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.<br /><br />It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.<br /><br />If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman.

positive

My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious. <br /><br />This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers. <br /><br />Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.<br /><br />It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.<br /><br />A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie

positive

All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like "Jäniksen vuosi" and "Loma" are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.<br /><br />Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.<br /><br />It's nice to see that idea of "Jäniksen Vuosi" still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) "Jäniksen Vuosi" Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankylä, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :)

positive

Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.

positive

When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.<br /><br />As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. "The Professor" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the "what if" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.<br /><br />7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.

positive

There is little more that I would like to say about this movie than it really can touch your heart if you let it. Sure, it's surrounded by all the stereotypical Hollywood stuff, but I found myself actually engrossed in this movie and very interested in the outcome. I'd recommend it to all you romantics out there in a second!

positive

Lucille Ball's version of "Mame" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your time.

negative

If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.

negative

The use of the term 'comedy' with relation to this documentary is an insult to the art of comedy, and worse yet is the pain that is inflicted on the viewers of this production. Almost nothing was funny.<br /><br />This documentary followed a small group of stand-up 'comics' on the road as they travel from town to town to perform in small clubs.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that their conversations and behavior off-stage and on-stage are indistinguishable, but sadly, equally unfunny.<br /><br />It's possible to understand the self delusions of grandeur which the featured 'comedians' possess, but it's harder to grasp the sounds of laughter heard from their audiences. Perhas these are the same audiences for whom the lame sitcoms on TV are intended.<br /><br />This was possibly the worst film I've ever watched in my 50+ years of movie viewing.

negative

I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies".<br /><br />Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronstället.<br /><br />This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.<br /><br />Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.

positive

"Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.<br /><br />DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.<br /><br />A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.<br /><br />That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.<br /><br />Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.<br /><br />The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.<br /><br />Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.<br /><br />In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.<br /><br />SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!

positive

The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie.

negative

Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much<br /><br />like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan "Think God" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as<br /><br />wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.<br /><br />I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for<br /><br />George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.<br /><br />If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one.

negative

I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !

negative

Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

positive

Adam Sandler's movies are my favorite comedies. The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite horror movie. The Matrix is my favorite sci-fi movie. Anywhere But Here is my favorite drama.<br /><br />Perhaps the single most valuable asset that this movie has is it's acting.<br /><br />Susan Sarandon is absolutely amazing. By the end of this movie I felt as if I knew her character better than I knew myself. She did a simply amazing job.<br /><br />Natalie Portman also did a great job. I recently rented her first movie, Leon (1994), in which she played a 12 year old girl. I believe that she is a contradiction in terms; she was a good kid actress. Well, 5 years later she is still just as good an actress. In fact, she's much better.<br /><br />Not only did Sarandon and Portman portray their characters well, but they also worked perfectly together. I mean, even now I can hardly believe that they are not actually mother and daughter in real life as well as in this movie.<br /><br />This movie is about a 14 year old girl (Portman) and her restless mother (Sarandon) that leave their home town in Wisconsin for Beverly Hills.<br /><br />At first Portman hates her mother for taking her away from her cousin and friends, and the two begin a very tumultuous relationship that goes up and down over the course of a couple years (usually down, might I add).<br /><br />Although this explanation is a little vague, the plot can only be summarized vaguely. But when you see this movie you will see that the plot really is not so vague or weak, for it is actually very deep. What I am saying is that the plot is outlined weakly, but then they focus in on it to make it strong.<br /><br />And it is very strong, but also the plot sequencing is great. And there are a few brilliant scenes that I hope will someday be seen as "classic".<br /><br />I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried. And although, admittedly, there are a few loopholes, it's still a stellar movie and it really comes together in the end.

positive

Billy Crystal is Larry, a writer who hasn't written and is suspected of murder in "Throw Momma from the Train," costarring Danny Devito and Anne Ramsey. The phrase "black comedy" was invented for this insanity, which is a take-off on Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." In fact, Owen (Devito) gets the idea of having Larry kill his mother in exchange for Owen killing Larry's ex from watching that famous film. "I saw the movie. Criss-cross," Owen tells Larry. Not that Larry knows what he's talking about until it appears it's too late - just like "Strangers." Larry, a writing teacher, claims that his ex-wife, played by Kate Mulgrew, stole his book and put her name on it. She has become a big celebrity, appearing on "Oprah," where she refers to Larry as "a beast." Owen is in Larry's class. He lives with an abusive Neanderthal mother (Ramsey) and has visions of poisoning her, sticking a scissors in her head - you name it. It's not long after seeing "Strangers on a Train" that he's in Honolulu, stalking Larry's wife. While she's leaning over a boat railing trying to get an earring, Owen stands behind her and creeps up...Soon the police are looking for Larry to question him, but he's at Owen's where he's being encouraged to live up to his end of a bargain he had no idea he made. You know, "criss-cross." There are several scenes copied from "Strangers," which are hilarious. I especially loved Larry's confession to the sleeping Mrs. Lift, Owen's mother, similar to when Guy thinks he's talking to Bruno's stepfather.<br /><br />Crystal and DeVito are complete masters of comic dialogue and timing and will leave you laughing, often out loud. Ramsey is repulsively funny - a totally "out there" performance. Kim Griest and Rob Reiner also have roles - Griest is Crystal's girlfriend, and Reiner has what amounts to a cameo.<br /><br />The ending is very clever, and the whole film will leave you laughing.

positive

A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate.

positive

This movie is too stupid for words. Even if you consider it to be a parody on movie-making, if you consider it to be completely camp, even than you're wasting your time watching it - for you've seen it a hundred times before. But maybe you are a big fan of high shrieking girl voices, you're still loving Barbie and Ken and you can stand this typical '80s electric guitar background noise... Well, than you'll have a chance.

negative

This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.

negative