Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

Beautifully photographed and ably acted, generally, but the writing is very slipshod. There are scenes of such unbelievability that there is no joy in the watching. The fact that the young lover has a twin brother, for instance, is so contrived that I groaned out loud. And the "emotion-light bulb connection" seems gimmicky, too.<br /><br />I don't know, though. If you have a few glasses of wine and feel like relaxing with something pretty to look at with a few flaccid comedic scenes, this is a pretty good movie. No major effort on the part of the viewer required. But Italian film, especially Italian comedy, is usually much, much better than this.

Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.<br /><br />So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.<br /><br />And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.<br /><br />And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.<br /><br />I see it coming: now you'll say "Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!". If being a comedy gives anything "carte blanche" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?<br /><br />So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.

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

I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.<br /><br />What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.<br /><br />I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.<br /><br />My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.<br /><br />This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.<br /><br />4/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.

I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it – it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.

A wonderful film to watch with astonishing scenes and talented actors, such as Misa Shimizu and Nagiko Tono. After 15 minutes of watching, your eyes get locked on the screen and you do nothing but breathing in the atmosphere of the film waiting what the destiny will bring to the characters. This film makes you leave your position as a standard audience, it takes you in, it makes you a part of the story... Costumes and settings are brilliant; especially the district of the okiyas is skillfully built. It is definitely not very Akira Kurosawa, however it still gets a lot from the master, especially the stylistic story telling tells us we're in a distinguished land of cinema which is quite far from hollywoodish flamboyance.

This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.<br /><br />Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.<br /><br />I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.<br /><br />When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.<br /><br />When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.<br /><br />The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.<br /><br />Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.<br /><br />Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.<br /><br />Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.<br /><br />A failure.

After I saw "La Pianiste" several years ago, I said to myself that I would never see it again, so powerful and disturbing it was. Time went on but I could not get the movie and its main character, Erika Kahut out of my mind. The story of a respected Piano teacher in Vienna Conservatory, cool and collected on the surface, an expert in classical music, with the inner world so dark and disturbing with the demons of fear, self-loathing and self destruction strong enough to ruin her demanded more than one viewing. I read the book "The Piano Teacher" by Elfriede Jelinek, the controversial Nobel Prize winner in literature that the film is based on and after reading it I saw the film again. Second time, all pieces of puzzle came to the right places. Not very often an outstanding harrowing book is transferred to the screen with such brilliancy as "Le Pianiste". Three actors gave outstanding performances. Franz Schubert's Piano music, "soaked in the morbid humanity", is another bright star of the movie.<br /><br />I only have one problem with Haneke's vision. There is a scene in the film where Haneke made some changes to Erika's character comparing to the novel. In the book, the furthest she went to reveal herself to Walter, the young student in the conservatory who became attracted to her, was in a letter. As soon as he realized what he was dealing with and showed to her how much he was repulsed by that, she had stopped communicating with him. Erika of the book would never chase Walter to throw herself to him. She kept everything inside - she did not like to act, she was not a chaser - she loved to watch. The big scene during the hockey game was not necessary. It tried to make Erika sympathetic (and of course, Huppert was heartbreaking) but it took the mystery that surrounded her - Jelinek did not write that scene, it sounded and looked false in otherwise excellent film.

I'd have to say this is one of the best animated films I've ever seen. I liked it the first time but really appreciated it on the second viewing, just a few weeks ago. I can see why sequel is doing such great business at the box office. Apparently, a lot of people liked this movie.<br /><br />A gorgeous color palette (man, this looks good) and a lot of good adult (but clean) humor make this a big winner. The opening 3-4-minute scene with "Scat," is excellent as are subsequent interludes with him. "Sid" the sloth (voiced by John Leguizano), however, provides the main humor in the movie. He usually has something funny to say throughout the movie.<br /><br />Ray Romano is the voice of the mammoth, the big character of the film, literally, while Denis Leary is the ferocious bad-guy-turned-good sabertooth tiger<br /><br />This isn't just humor and pretty colors but a nice, sentimental story of how a little baby softens up a couple of tough characters. This isn't interrupted with a lot of songs, either: one only brief one and there is nothing offensive, language-wise.<br /><br />If more animated movies were this good, I'd own more.

Someone must have been seriously joking when they made this film.<br /><br />Firstly, it is an absolute impossibility that this movie was made in 1993. The fashions and music dictate that this is seriously 80's. My guess is that this has sat on the shelf for a long while before some crazed distributer picked it up and released it to a disbelieving world.<br /><br />There is a plot. Kind of. A strange loner meets a random man with a beard who tells him that if he meditates while singing his favourite song he will be able to turn into whomever he chooses. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the loner's favourite song is London Bridge Is Falling Down. Why is this his favourite song? Because he's an idiot. We are only a minute into the film and already the film has reached a monumental level of stupidity. It gets even stupider.<br /><br />The loner is the nostril picker. I can only assume this as there are two scenes in the film where he is seen picking his nose. That clears up the title. He decides to change into a girl so that he can get close to other girls. And kill them. That's more or less it.<br /><br />The acting is universally appalling. Every single performance in this movie sucks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the acting is of the standard of a pornographic movie. It really is that terrible. The nostril picker appears to the audience as the nostril picker. The characters in the movie see him as the girl he has become through singing London Bridge Is Falling Down. Man, I feel like an idiot even typing this. Anyway, it is kind of strange seeing a middle aged weirdo hanging out with school girls. And not in a good way. There is even an extended montage of scenes where the nostril picker is at school with the girls and a song plays over the top. It is very possibly the worst song ever recorded. I'm not even going to describe it. You'll know it when you hear it. And you'll agree with me.<br /><br />There are some scenes of violence, sure. And there is a Benny Hill style chase sequence involving a transsexual. There is even an immortal bit of dialogue, that may or may not have been taken from Shakespeare or John Milton, where the nostril picker says to a prostitute, 'I've got the cash if you've got the gash'. Lovely, I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />Utter nonsense.

From the director of movies 'Last Seduction' and 'Kill me again', comes another movie in the noir style. John Dahl created a niche for himself by making movies on the themes of adultery, blackmailing in the early 90s. Though I did not have much of an opinion in regards to last seduction. But nowadays Mr Dahl has resorted to directing television shows.Its a shame since the man had talent.<br /><br />***SPOILERS** This is quite an impressive movie which revolves around a drifter Cage) that comes in to the town of Wyoming for a job. However he does not prove lucky and becomes mistaken for a hit-man from Texas by bar owner J.T Walsh. He is given the task to kill his wife (Boyle). But Cage decides to split after taking the upfront payment without doing it. On the way out of town he accidentally hits a guy on the road, who he then takes back to the local hospital. At that point Cage coincidently meets Walsh again, who also appears to be the local sheriff. After that Cage escapes from his clutches but meets in to the real hit-man that happens to be Dennis Hopper.<br /><br />John Dahl has co-written and directed this movie. Therefore it goes to show that a project can turn out decent when a director puts his thoughts on screen. The direction is of good standard, however while watching the movie I got a made for TV movie feeling. There were too many close up frames. However this does not deter the movie from being an enjoyable experience. The movie had good pace and the structure was perfect. Dahl written the script with good duration of lenght.<br /><br />Cage portrayed the role as a drifter realistically, though to me his performance seemed somewhat restrained. His facial expressions were on the mark. Lara Flynn Boyle was hot and handled her part perfectly as the femme fatale. Her hairstyle was far out and can make any guy go on his knees. Hopper played his part well. But I feel he was miscast for this role. He did not convince me that he had the qualities of a hit-man. The role was not written keeping his personality in mind.<br /><br />While viewing one will get deja vu of previous movies like 'The Hot Spot' and 'A Perfect Murder'. Due to the fact that some sub plots are similar. Overall if you are a fan of noir movies, then this one is for you. Worth recommending. 7/10

Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.

Horror movie??really???? i cant believe how bad this movie was,what the point of this movie??? the movie almost 1h and 30 min and the first 70 minutes of it,is just lena walking around with this stupid look on her face after she had an accident....not much talking at all,not even much actions at all.. i have to say tho,the last 20 minuets it got little tiny action.. and was still stupid....... and the end oh my god,i don't know where to begin,it also end up with this stupid look on lena face lol.. don't get me wrong i love Lena Headey,i think she is great actress,but i don't know what got into her to do this movie.. don't waste your time and watching it,because this movie has no story,has no acting ..and has no point...not to mention how slow this movie goes and it feels like you been watching it forever.

Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.<br /><br />The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses.

I'd never heard of zero budget "auteur" Neil Johnson before seeing "Battlespace" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.<br /><br />Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like "Battlefield Earth" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.<br /><br />Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.<br /><br />"Battlespace" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like "Cl.One" and "Recon 2022". If the boredom of "Strange Horizons" and "Alien Visitor" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.

Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings. <br /><br />He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?<br /><br />Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.<br /><br />Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.

How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is "killing God"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read "Origin Of Species" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature.

yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie.

A must see by all - if you have to borrow your neighbors kid to see this one. Easily one of the best animation/cartoons released in a long-time. It took the the movies Antz to a whole new level. Do not mistake the two as being the same movie - although in principle the movies plot is similiar. Just go and enjoy.

Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.

I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.<br /><br />From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.<br /><br />To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.<br /><br />Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.

This is not a serious film, and does not pretend to be, but it is not as bad as some of its reviews, it's title, and the first ten minutes lead you to expect.<br /><br />The plot is very silly, but this adds to the light-hearted fun and enthusiasm which runs through the film. The characters are played sympathetically, and while they do engage in typical teenage angst, they generally avoid the sickly sentimentality usually to be found in this film genre.<br /><br />Unusually set in London, sympathetic to geeks, this is well worth a watch if it happens to be on; if you want some tongue-in-cheek silliness, and don't mind suspending your disbelief.

Went out with my friends and saw this movie last weekend here in London. We didn't know what to expect, the poster gave some of it away, and I won't say any more so as not to spoil the plot, but we found it to be an excellent film with great acting, convincing plot and scary as hell! Having done some research on the making of the film I have to hand it to those guys, the filmmakers, actors, writers, etc., for having put together such a film with such limited resources. Post-production very well done, too. For all of that I give them a 10 out of 10, and I hope they will continue their fine work. Keep it up, guys. You rock!

I saw the Messiah:- The First Killings and I thought it was absolutely one of the best programmes I have seen, ever. It was one of those programmes that you think that oh, no, I cannot watch the rest of this but you feel compelled to watch it just to see who done it. Jamie Draven was an absolutely amazing actor in it, to be able to switch between two totally, totally different characters one of which is the evil, nasty person that did it and the other person who is Jez Clifton, the cop. To be able to do that, well, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it, well not without cracking anyway. I really do love and care for Jamie Draven with all of my heart and I always will, until the end of time, I think that Jamie is the sweetest, cutest, sexiest guy in the world. I absolutely love Jamie in Ultimate Force also because he looks god damn sexy in the blacks that he wore. I love Jamie Love Paula Draven<br /><br />-X-

Dutiful wife Norma Shearer (as Katherine "Kitty" Brown) waits on husband Rod La Rocque (as Bob Brown) hand and foot. While making him breakfast in bed, and helping him dress for a Sunday golf outing, Ms. Shearer suggests joining Mr. La Rocque for the day, noting how infrequently the two see each other. But, La Rocque puts her off, saying her presence adversely affects his game. Then, unexpectedly, Shearer meets the real reason for her husband's frequent absences… his pretty blonde mistress!<br /><br />Three years later, Shearer is a glamorous and flirty divorcée. While summering in Paris, she has struck up a friendship with wealthy, older socialite Marie Dressler (as as Mrs. "Boucci" Bouccicault). Ms. Dressler invites Shearer to her Long Island home, to socialize with some friends, and ask a favor. Dressler is worried about her granddaughter's relationship with a suave, worldly man. She wants young Sally Eilers (as Dionne) to marry Raymond Hackett (as Bruce), instead. Aware of Shearer's flirtatious conquests, Dressler asks her to lure the undesirable man away from Ms. Eilers. Shearer is stunned to discover the man is La Rocque, her ex-husband.<br /><br />Shearer and Dressler make this a cute, entertaining play. They are in top form, giving guaranteed-to-be-popular performances, with enthusiasm and professionalism. The story is silly and predictable; yet, in a way which helps the humorous situation. And, the ending is quite clever. In fact, the comic "Let Us be Gay" may have aged better than Shearer's larger-produced, and more serious, "The Divorcée", which was released around the same time. The cast uniformly fine. La Rocque is better than his film with Lilian Gish; but, his role is not at all endearing. Gilbert Emery (as Towney) and Tyrell Davis (as Wallace) are funny supporting suitors.<br /><br />Those not familiar with Norma Shearer may not realize it is she who appears as the dowdy wife in the opening scenes. This is Shearer as "Kitty" before her make-over. Watch the close-ups of Shearer with light, natural make-up, for a good look at an intriguingly beautiful woman.<br /><br />******* Let Us Be Gay (1930) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Marie Dressler, Rod La Rocque

I've loved all of Cream's work, even as there is such a small and precious catalog of work to take hold. Even when they go for as long as twenty minutes with some of their songs (Spoonful and Toad off of Wheels of Fire are prime examples) still rock the socks off of more than half of any given rock act working today. This power to gel on stage is given one of the most anticipate rock band reunions ever with their Royal Albert Hall shows last year. They may have gotten older, as have their fans, but the energy is still there, with the great arrangements of classic blues songs as well as their own. The renditions of White Room, Badge, Politician, Spoonful, Sunshine of Your Love, not one seems to miss a beat. Clapton's solos have a formation that he sometimes doesn't have when on stage with his solo band. Ginger Baker, enough said. Jack Bruce is sturdy enough with his vocals still with a kind of power that Clapton could never get on his own. Bottom line, if you want to see what were the best shows you wish you had seen last year (well, some may have seen them), it's all on this DVD, with cool special features.

"The Cobweb" is an example of many examples of movies that feature strong, sometimes noteworthy performances and high points, but unfortunately are shattered and slowed down drastically by a murky plot and very little to interest the audience. It stars Richard Widmark as a doctor working at a mental institution whose life becomes in turmoil due to family problems and a rather ludicrous and overworked conflict that really seems like no big deal at all.<br /><br />The plot is preposterous. Its time for the institution to get new drapes for the library windows. One old woman wants to have her drapes put over them, but a lot of the patients want to make their own. And somehow, this ridiculous and unintentionally loony conflict breaks out into the point where lives are in danger and families start to fall apart. It sounds more like a conflict that would occur between very young children.<br /><br />The questioning of the logic of the plot and whether it could really happen is so massive that one wonders if only a real-like lunatic could buy it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the acting. The cast following Widmark is composed of other great actors, many of them Academy Award-nominees and winners. And there is occasionally a moment in the film that works out brilliantly, but it always excludes the stupid plot about window drapes. Unfortunately, there is too much about the doggone drapes and thus, the movie slows down. A lot of the takes are long and done from one camera viewpoint, adhering to the slow pacing and lack of viewing interest.<br /><br />In a short analysis, "The Cobweb" is an unrecognized film and it becomes obvious why to the viewers basically as soon as the plot comes into focus, which it does pretty quickly. It just really doesn't sound like much fun to watch and I tell you that it is not much fun to watch.

This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.

One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.

I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10

One of the best films I've seen in a long time, precise in its vision, and beautiful and highly imaginative in its realization. I can't say much without giving it away, and I don't recommend you actually read that much about this movie before seeing--just see it.<br /><br />But ah, one must come up with ten lines of text to have a review listed on IMDb. Conundrum. What can I do? Tell you about the film? Nope. Can't do it. I think I enjoyed this movie precisely because saw it with no preconceptions. Please you do the same.<br /><br />I suppose this can be said: the acting is excellent and understated, and what I have come to love about foreign movies is that the movies are actually about the MOVIES, not the stars.

Like some other people wrote, I'm a die-hard mario fan, and I loved this game. <br /><br />This game starts slightly boring, but trust me, it's worth it. As soon as you start, your hooked! The levels are fun and exiting. They will hook you 'till your mind turns to mush. I'm not kidding. This game is also orchestrated, and is beautifully done. <br /><br />To keep this spoiler free, I have to keep my mouth shut about details. But please try this game! It'll be worth it!<br /><br />Story: 9.9 Action: 10.1 (It's that good!) Hardness: 10 Attention Grabber: 10 Average: 10

Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.

The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.<br /><br />The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book which—legend has it—can turn dark into light.<br /><br />See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html

One of the greatest westerns of all time! But this one, unlike many others, does not deal with the nature, horses, shootouts, etc., but instead deals with one rifle, the Winchester '73, and how this one rifle effects others and how they effect it. A rifle is not a living, breathing, human being, right? You may be inclined to believe that it is not. But it seems to have a mind of its own, for two very similar reasons: it gets back to its rightful owner in the end, even though that throughout the rest of the picture, its unthoughtful "owners" do their best to make sure it does not, and it never seems to be content until it gets back to its original owner, so, coincidentally, the unthoughtful "owners" always seem to lose it somehow or get killed trying to protect and keep it, until it gets back to James Stewart, then it is "content". But, not every one of the owners deserves to have it. Stewart does, of course, since he won it. McNally does not, since he had to be a dirty thief and steal it. Drake definitely does not, because he would probably lose it in some poker game, and besides, Drake is too cowardly to fight, so why should he have a one-of-a-kind rifle if he will not even use it? Duryea does not, because he is just a chuckling maniac, and we all know that chuckling maniacs do not deserve guns. This film has a sort of noir edge that only Westerns can have, such as the Ox-Bow Incident. Westerns have their own type of noir, much different than the 30's and 40's Bogart films. It is, hands-down, the best one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns, even though my personal favorite is "Bend of the River". The other four became much different than this one. I do not think it a coincidence to see that the other four were color, and this is black and white. This is because of the noir edge. All five films had the revenge and the dark past on Stewart's part play into the film, to the point where this is not just Stewart's dark side, but also actually a sort of character, not one to be listed in the credits, but one that you can only recognize and know that it is there, always present. However, this one, not just on revenge and the dark past, but also in terms of supreme danger, and characters that were very different than Stewart make it surpass the other four in all aspects. But Stewart never crosses the line. He does, however, walk the line between light and dark. This is why black and white played such an integral part in the film. They could have all been black and white, or they could have all been color. But this one is in black and white, and the other four are in color, and there is a very good reason for that.

The movie is very realistic. Absolutely, it does not belong to the Hollywood Cinema genre where every line must be pronounced in a perfect manner and where every move is precise. The actors playing the roles of the lovers do a GREAT job representing the characters' feelings and thoughts - their everyday life adventures. Overall, the movie climaxes the viewer to a depressed state. This is where the realism of the whole story is apparent. Not everything happens the way we think it should happen. I can say though that the movie does not end on a bad note. We watch, we learn, we experience ourselves. That is probably the moral of this story.

I've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy. <br /><br />PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.

Now please don't start calling me names like, "unpatriotic" , "weirdo" and more .<br /><br />The very length of this movie (4 hours .. !!!) is its biggest mistake . No editing at all - seems like J.P. Dutta fell in love with his project too much . Even Lagaan was 4 hours long - but it was entertaining and gave a message as well .<br /><br />It's based on true incidents and real people . Kudos to it , but were the repetitive war scenes really needed ? On top of it the focus constantly shifted from one battalion / squadron to another and it was impossible to keep a track of them all .<br /><br />Between the skirmishes , there were songs about loneliness , lovesickness and related stuff . There were chummy conversations . In the beginning it gave some relief from the violence but became so monotonous later that one could even correctly predict nature of the forthcoming talk .<br /><br />Why were the soldiers walking around as if they were lions in jungle , fully unaware that enemy was lurking somewhere near? And when they were shot , it elicited sympathy but it seemed unmindful of them to be so cocksure of their safety in the first place .<br /><br />Music was melodious and the lyrics were soulful but did not fit with the movie . Better to listen to them on the soundtrack rather than in the movie .<br /><br />Acting was the saving grace : From seasoned veterans like Sanjay Dutt and Ajay Devgan , to relative newbies like Abhishek Bachchan and Akshaye Khanna , everyone acted like a pro . Manoj Bajpai and Ashutosh Rana deserve a special mention for lightening up the mood whenever necessary .<br /><br />Dialogues ranged from brilliant ("From Madhuri .. with Love!!") to illogical / monotonous ("Pakistan se zyada musalman Hindusthan mein hain") . And the expletive spree consisting of all the MCs , BCs , Cs and F-words wasn't really required . <br /><br />LOC Kargil attempts to provide a fitting tribute to the brave Indian soldiers , but tries too hard and ultimately fails . Indian soldiers surely deserve a better tribute .

I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.<br /><br />including but not limited to "allright lets see what these guys can do" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.<br /><br />Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks.

I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go. <br /><br />The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.<br /><br />I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.

Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the "motion" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.

I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.<br /><br />Some examples:<br /><br />1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.<br /><br />2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.<br /><br />I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.

this movie made me watch Paul W.S. Anderson's AvP1 and enjoy it! I am not even going to dream of comparing Requiem to any of the Alien or Predator series' movies,this is a HORRIBLE TEENAGE B-HORROR FOOTAGE SET IN AN American SMALL TOWN NO ONE CARES ABOUT.<br /><br />AvP1 at least had heaps of handcrafted art carved into the movie sets,it had bags of eye-candy not previously seen in any of the original movies - but was ruined by unconvincing characters/acting.<br /><br />Requiem takes bad acting to the lowest imaginable level,and it also lacks in every other department just as much...it's a sacrilege to include alien and predator suits in this kind of rubbish.

There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them. There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending too.

Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"! <br /><br />*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan

This is the worst kind of film.<br /><br />The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s "good boys" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting "Kill him"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane? <br /><br />Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.<br /><br />This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.

The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.<br /><br />One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV...

I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible.

There are only a few movies which can be called `must see' and SHEPHERED is one of those films. In many ways it was ahead of it's time (and you can tell it was a source of inspiration for several better-known films) Copied by many, equaled by none, this truly is one great movie.<br /><br />The story is complex but unfolds itself as a taut yet frequently amusing thriller and highly thought provoking exploration of the nature of humanity. The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where people must live underground and chaos reigns. C. Thomas Howell is a `Shepherd' one who protects the populace for various religious leaders by killing off any unfit members of the society. The whole idea made me think about our society. It's really a brilliant social commentary, which is more than I can say for certain recent sci-fi/action blockbusters. MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS didn't make one feel that any real innovation was taking place, just dull video-game effects. But SHEPHERD scores on the action scale too...<br /><br />Not once does this movie let the viewer catch their breath. Peter Hayman proves himself to be one of the few genius action directors. We're talking 100%, high grade, down home kung fu fighting! It was excellent. Really good special effects, shoot-outs, bleak-futuristic cyber-punk noir style… the film really has its own elements.<br /><br />When talking about SHEPHERD, it's impossible not to mention how much style it has. The vision of this city is really stunning. It recalls images of Tim Burton's very memorable vision of Gotham in BATMAN. And these sights are photographed by Graeme Mears with a degree of skill that puts Gordon Willis and Conrad Hall to shame. Even the special effects proved amazing. Doubtless the scenes where fighting occurs are landmarks in all of filmmaking. This movie is a ballet of awesome visual display.<br /><br />Still, at the base of it all, there lies an interesting story, carried through by a strong cast. The acting (especially Rowdy Piper) and the plot are both great, and excellently directed. In contrast with loads of futuristic films made with a strong artificial flavor, the characters are believable and the dialogue is natural and full of wit. I'm always proud to see a great film like SHEPHERD come along. It's a damn shame that it didn't receive good distribution and made nothing in the box office. It's a rarity worth searching for. This movie will impress you and make you feel 10 times cooler for having seen it!

Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.<br /><br />The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.<br /><br />If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.

With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than "It's a Wonderful Life", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done.

If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.<br /><br />After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.<br /><br />Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.<br /><br />Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.<br /><br />Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.<br /><br />Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.<br /><br />I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.

"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.<br /><br />*** out of ****

If you haven't seen this, you do not know what you are missing. The first time you do, you will litteraly be in pain lying on floor throwing up from laughing so hard, and having probably wet yourself as well.<br /><br />It is THAT funny. There hasn't been a single comedic performance to this date that I have seen that tops this or even comes close. So many classic one liners, stories, and segways..<br /><br />The drunken uncle at the BBQ, Gi Joe, Mr T, goony goo goo, ice cream man, you say any of these things to anyone who has seen this performance and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they will not be able to keep a straight face and will burst out in laughter, or recite the rest of the dialogue from the act.<br /><br />Pure classic!! Shame you can't get it on DVD..<br /><br />Rating 10+ out of 10

Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.<br /><br />Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.

Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"

This engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.<br /><br />Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.<br /><br />Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.<br /><br />Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.

I just watched this on Turner Classic Movies Last night, for the first time ever seeing it, and I loved it. I like lots of the older films, especially because of the absence of all the filthy language, and excessive violence, nudity and sex in most of today's films. I also think they were made much better in many (but not all) cases. Jimmy Stewart is a special favorite of mine. I just thought this movie was a lot of fun to watch, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. If you feel the same way about the older films I don't think you can go wrong with this one. I believe "You've Got Mail" is a remake(even though slightly different and also a very enjoyable film.) of this film. For a relaxing evening with a movie you don't have to be ashamed of if your kids or anyone walks in on your viewing, get this,or catch it on one of the classic movie channels.

many people have said that this movie was not a good movie, at a horror perspective i agree, it was not very scary, it did have some gruesome ways of torture yes (hooks going where they shouldn't) but not scary. but it was a good movie at a comedic stand-point, i thought it was hilarious, such bad acting from dee snider with his stupid theological questioning and every second word he said came out as "what is____, define______", then the angry mob at his house with one of them holding a sign saying "we're not gonna take it" (which is a song from his band twisted sister. but i think the part that made me laugh the most was the one guy's wife that was dead and dee snider was holding her up and making her dance, when i saw that i broke out in tears... so i would not recommend this for avid horror lovers, but for those who love horror for its comedy i recommend this movie 100%

I can't say I enjoyed this as much as "The Big Lebowski" or "Raising Arizona," and felt a little slighted, but "O Brother" is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal. <br /><br />Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or "The Dukes of Hazzard" or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like "A Bronx Tale." When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for "The Perfect Storm"--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).<br /><br />Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song "A Man of Constant Sorrow." The DVD also contains the music video for that song. <br /><br />Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10)

Just read through the other comments here, and was a little surprised to find that no one had said anything about the acting or plot.<br /><br />Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy can both deliver an amazing Stand-up comedy show. Great actors they are not. Enough about that.<br /><br />As for the plot? Oh man. Every time the movie tries to "fool" you into believing the good-guys are going to lose, you know those scenes: "What? The good-guys loses? Oh.. I see, it was just a trick", it's done so terribly bad, you can spot it a mile away.<br /><br />It had 2 or 3 funny moments, but not enough to save the day.<br /><br />It's a little silly that these comments has to be 10 lines now. A lot of people will fill it up with crap, for it to be eligible. Being brief is an art.

-Kidnappings in Mexico are as common as honeys giving me their phone numbers so if you're rich then you'll need a good bodyguard to keep you and your kids safe. A couple hires a washed up bodyguard called Creasy to protect their adorable kid Pita. At first, their relationship is a tad buggy but after a while, Creasy eases up to the girl and the two develop a father/daughter relationship. One day Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is badly injured in the process. When he wakes up he finds out that the girl has been killed due to a ransom negotiations that went wrong and this sets Creasy on a path find the men responsible for her death and make sure they are brought to his brand of justice.<br /><br />-Keep some Tylenol next to you while watching this movie because you will need to take some after watching it. I really love the story here of going to the extreme to obtain revenge because most movies usually just want revenge but really never go too far where as this movie they show how far a man can go to do what he feels is right. The only problem is the annoying visual style, which will either make you hate the movie or hate Tony Scott. I really feel sorry for the cinematographer because I'm sure he came into this movie thinking he was going to be filming an action movie and probably got all excited but instead he got stuck being the DP for a filmmaker that feels that the whole movie should look like it's been possessed by demons. I wouldn't have mind if the crappy visuals were restricted to a few action scenes but when it's spread through out the whole movie then that's when we have some problems. The same annoying style was recently used on "Domino" and much like with this movie the style did hurt that otherwise great movie.<br /><br />-Another person I feel sorry on this movie was the soon to be great Harry Gregson Williams who had the impossible task of trying to compose music out of the jagged images. Somehow, Williams wrote some decent music for the movie but I'm sure if the movie had been more stable then the music would have turned out a lot better. The sound is wrongfully used throughout the movie and instead of enhancing the movie experience, it rather makes you feel like you're being punished. The overuse of the subwoofer is irritating as every 5 seconds or so you can hear an ungodly low end sound coming out of it. I don't know why Scott thought the audience needed to be bombarded by the subwoofer but it really takes you away from the movie.<br /><br />-The acting in the movie is a beast despite the visuals. Little Fanning does yet another great job here and the scene at the end of the movie just breaks my heart. If the end of the movie doesn't make anyone cry then they're dead on the inside. Denzel Washington breaks his rule of not making any action movies with this movie and luckily, for him he gets to play a great character. The whole idea of a man that's lost in life and all of a sudden due to a tragedy finds a purpose in his life is nothing new but Washington brings some heart and emotion to the otherwise flat character. I love how we witness him from being a loner to actually learning to have emotion and after the kidnapping becoming a cold instrument of revenge. Radha Mitchell plays Marc Anthony's wife and she along with Fanning are the two reasons why I can't hate the movie too much. J.Lo's husband comes and goes in the movie but he doesn't really stand out much. Mickey Rourke and Chris Walken all have minimal roles in the movie but they do make an impact.<br /><br />-One thing that makes me laugh is how the filmmakers try to makeup for the crappy way they portray Mexico by calling it a fine city at the end of the movie. A little too late for that if you ask me. Let's hope that Tony Scott is done with this phase of intentionally trying to ruin his career because a filmmaker as talented as him CAN and must do better than this.

This film was my first acquaintance with the talents of Chris Cooper. I was deeply impressed with the character he played. I knew when I saw the film that more great things were to come from this gifted actor. He plays a Union Captain who, along with a couple of enlisted men, are foraging in Eastern Kentucky. They happen upon the farm of a "Sesech" woman whose husband has chosen to go off to the Confederacy. <br /><br />The portrayal of Eastern Kentucky, and its seriously divided sentiments during the War, is so very accurate. If you are looking for a war film with a lot of blood and guts, this would not be it. If you are looking for a drama that explores the psychology of peoples at war, actually and philosophically, then this is the best study of how divided loyalties affected the interaction of peoples in the border states during America's Civil War.

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.

The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.<br /><br />Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say "The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration." <br /><br />The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.<br /><br />

Four holy young men from Mormon country go to L.A. to preach the gospel to urban heathens. But, one of the young Mormons is a repressed gay who "happens" to cross paths with a very "out" young L.A. party boy. (What would film plots be without coincidences?). These two, very different, young men become friends, and in the process, affect each other's outlook which, in turn, sets up an inevitable clash between gay and Mormon cultures.<br /><br />That is the premise of "Latter Days", a 2003 film, written and directed by C.Jay Cox, himself a former Mormon missionary. The film's story is, of course, highly relevant, especially in contemporary America. Variations of this story need to be told, and retold, and retold, hopefully in future films ... because the underlying theme brings to light the hatefully superior attitude that Christian fundamentalists too often display toward gays. By its nature, "Latter Days" is provocative, and I doubt that the film was well received in Provo or Pocatello, even though the script is intelligent, sensitive, and insightful.

the 25th hour was a movie i just chanced upon.tuning in late at night, this movie kept my fascination throughout the entire film.tony quin is this poor unsuspecting guy who just wanted to fall in love with a woman,and by simple jealousy , goes on this incredible journey--terrific movie,and a hidden treasure.

Mild spoilers below.<br /><br />The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.<br /><br />When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.

I have to admit I have a particular penchant for the humor and story telling style of British movies, though not all of course, succeed.<br /><br />This film made me think, and left me in the end with a quiet smile on my face. Its about character development and relationships, truth and lies, and whether love is sometimes simply not enough. Some very nicely understated acting from all the participants, especially the two leads, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson.<br /><br />There was a lot of fuss made about Gosford Park, but with this piece I feel Fellowes has actually produced a better movie, though it has not been a mainstream release.<br /><br />An intelligent mature story about real people who are undeniably flawed, but also capable of acts of genuine graciousness.

Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well.<br /><br />What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other.<br /><br />And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this is a very rare thing in American films.<br /><br />I have shown this movie to many people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK.<br /><br />This is one of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no lesson here you need to find one yourself.<br /><br />Everyone praises the acting, directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not repeat it all again.<br /><br />So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you dare to be challenged!

First one has to take into account the time period this film was made in. 1995. Rappers were in it, and that added to the flair of it.<br /><br />Remy was a socially awkward teen trying to find his way and couldn't, until he met and was befriended by Nazis. They took him in. Nazi's aren't all this awkward, but like most gangs, they fill a void that is missing be it economic, social, emotional, whatever. Michael Rappaport played the part perfectly.<br /><br />Omar Epps was the hot shot track star, with a questionable work ethic and a chip on his shoulder. He kept trying to feel sorry for himself and his plight, and had his girlfriend and professor to straighten him out on it.<br /><br />Kristen was a young white girl trying to find herself and trying to fit in, until she was date raped. She then found her self experiment with her sexuality, and getting involved politically.<br /><br />This film deals with racism and like most things that deal with racism, people's own perspectives come into play.<br /><br />I read so many comments about how there were no 'evil' black characters but there were evil white one (Nazis). So what? Remy wasn't portrayed as evil at all, he was trying to find his way, and kept failing until some skinheads accepted him. He was scared, it was sad to see him devolve how he did. He even says right before he kills himself, I didn't mean it, I wanted to be an engineer.<br /><br />Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes were angry black men, Ice Cube was somewhat of an intellectual, and Busta Rhymes was just portrayed as a dumb thug. They both showed no consideration at all for their roommates, and generally appear to not like white people very much. They were angry like the Nazis but not on the level of Nazis in terms of overall badness. Sorry if this makes it seem unfair, but are there really black groups like the Nazis? No.<br /><br />People say it shows white=-bad black=good. Not true, the only bad white characters were the Nazis and the police, which is more or less true in real life. Kristen was a good girl, her boyfriend (omar epps roommate) was a good guy, and even Remy was a good guy, he was just misguided.<br /><br />Omar Epps, Ice Cube and Busta were seriously flawed characters, angry and inconsiderate. Although their constant harassment by police seemed to justify some of their anger. Remy's inability to fit in seemed to justify his anger as well.<br /><br />Good movie, well done. Like all movies that deal with racism, its a great piece to get a discussion going.<br /><br />I don't think Cube and Busta coulda beat those Nazis though.

Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain "car wreck" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.<br /><br />So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.<br /><br />As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.

Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.<br /><br />We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.<br /><br />I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). <br /><br />Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.<br /><br />It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).<br /><br />The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). <br /><br />With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.

It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.<br /><br />There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.<br /><br />It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?

This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today – he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.

I just watched this film at an advanced screening. I had not read the book, and knew nothing of the story, but went because the book was voted "Book of the Year" by two local colleges. So I cannot compare the book with the movie as others have done.<br /><br />In short, I thought this was an incredibly moving story. The acting was believable, and the insight into Afghan culture and political history was both interesting and shocking. My oldest friend is Iranian-American, and so I felt an affinity for certain Middle Eastern values and traditions that were portrayed in the movie, as they reminded me of the times I spent with his family.<br /><br />The themes of friendship, family, human values, and courage under fire are universal, and are well developed in the film. I won't list the plot details, as these can be obtained elsewhere. But based on the film's technical aspects, the acting, and, above all, its heart-wrenching story, I would definitely recommend this movie.

One of the best film I ever saw.<br /><br />The performance of Louis Jouvet is fantastic. He really 'fill' his part, and this is wonderful. He's such a good actor that you can't think of anyone else to take his part. <br /><br />And both Suzy Delair and Bernard Blier are good as standard french people, trying to defend themselves in the struggle born with a murder...<br /><br />The story is breathtaking and well built. You can feel the ambiance of Paris for that period (which is about 1930-40), between two wars... The clubs, the old little buildings, the neighbors.<br /><br />All those things contribute to make a great movie.

John Landis truly outdid himself when he directed Michael Jackson's THRILLER as a short film. Of course, it's corny, the dialogue is terrible and it all seems way too cheesy, but it's perfect none-the-less.<br /><br />Michael and his date are out at the cinema to view the latest horror flick. When it all gets a little too graphic for the date, she leaves. Michael follows. On the way home, they decide to take a shortcut through the local graveyard. There, it begins.<br /><br />The actual thriller dance is amazing. It's full of those trademark Jackson moves, as well as some memorable zombie moves, too. It doesn't appear rushed at all, nor too long. The whole thing seems movie-like and it really is actually rather scary. Of course, it's one of the most famous music videos of all time, and is probably the greatest music video ever made as well.<br /><br />Overall: Watch it, seriously. Those 13 minutes will be some of the best ever spent staring at a screen. (5/5)

Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings "She's Like The Wind" in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance.

What I find remarkable about this terrific film, is that Altman, the crazy and wild guy that he is, took the novel THAT COLD DAY IN THE PARK and the Sandy Dennis character was originally a male in the book. He was a mentally whacked out isolated gay who looked out of his apartment window when he spotted the hustler. It is strange that Altman fans aren't aware of how clever he was to change the sex of the main character; thereby avoiding the homo erotic taboos of gay life in the 60's and actually making Dennis' reclusive kind of madness work even better in the transposition.If you see the film again, it will be evident how wily the Altman mind works...

Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes!

This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn<br /><br />about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch<br /><br />nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television<br /><br />not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying<br /><br />their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet<br /><br />that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show. <br /><br />This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet<br /><br />Some people think this is a good combination.<br /><br />I on the other hand think it is retardant.<br /><br />And if you notice its a lot like jackass<br /><br />and viva la Bam<br /><br />just a note, this show is horrible

Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states "We gave up everything so she could study piano" and Huppert immediately snaps "You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you."<br /><br />So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?<br /><br />For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.

Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.

In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.<br /><br />"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.<br /><br />Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.<br /><br />While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.<br /><br />The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.<br /><br />Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.<br /><br />"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10

For some inexplicable reason, Jerry's movies often seemed to come in for diatribes from certain quarters although they were rarely box office disappointments. It's one of life's great mysteries to me because his films have always had a 'feel good' factor about them for me. But this film is not only not bad: it's an exceedingly good and clever comedy. To those who may be tickled by 'modern' crude or cruel humour, don't see this film: There's nothing in it like that and you'll be wasting your time.<br /><br />I've only seen this film once on the television. I've waited ever since to see it again and that's been quite a few years. You'd think the idea of an arrogant millionaire businessman heading off to win the war against the Nazis with his own small private army of subservient employees would be boring wouldn't you? Well only Jerry Lewis would dare try such a plot for an out and out comedy and it works, I have to say, brilliantly.<br /><br />I think that, as with 'The Nutty Professor' and most of his other films, this movie is testimony to his comic genius, both in concept and execution. I think Buddy Love might have said, "You know, true comedy can not only make a six year old hysterical, it'll do that for his Dad too." Maybe a few nutty Nazis generals with monocles and a limp would dislike this movie, honestly. If you only see one more comedy in your life, see this one. Be careful though, you might die laughing. And I'm not joking!

Soul Calibur is more solid than it ever was... with the new character creation, and the bad-ass chronicle of the sword mode on the home version.<br /><br />The arcade version is more complete, even though the character roster is smaller than the home version, this version is definitely the more pretty of the two, eliminating all of the "goofy/unrealistic" fighting styles found in the home version. If you were in any way disappointed with the home version, or perhaps thought it was "too much," you might find a much more likable and straight forward game of Soul Calibur in the arcade. Think you have what it takes to become a Legend?

Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!

I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end.

I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.<br /><br />There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.<br /><br />Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.

Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.<br /><br />It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.<br /><br />Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this.

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

Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and revolutionary.<br /><br />This is a movie that is made great by its story. The story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor Sjöström.<br /><br />The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma Lagerlöf. The story is adapted by Victor Sjöström himself, who perhaps should had taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one.<br /><br />The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one. The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and 'future'.<br /><br />Sjöström did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts.<br /><br />A really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden.<br /><br />9/10

I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.<br /><br />This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.<br /><br />I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.<br /><br />Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.<br /><br />PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.

This film is great! Being a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents..." I just knew I would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling going on down in Devon.<br /><br />This film is not as funny as I expected but it is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier set to "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.<br /><br />So if you are a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents...", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British comedy see it A.S.A.P!!!

Don't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type. <br /><br />Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage. <br /><br />Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat. <br /><br />There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives. <br /><br />The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.<br /><br />He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.<br /><br />Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.

I've seen Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, and The Streets of Laredo, and now The Return to Lonesome Dove. If you are hungry for more after watching Lonesome Dove, this'll fill yer belly. Great cast, great story. Most definitely a close second to Lonesome Dove. I will be purchasing this movie to add to my collection. This is the best, or at least my favorite performance by Jon Voight. He is Captain Call. Lou Gossett Jr. playing Isom Pickett is not somebody I'd mess with, he is a bad ass with perspective. William Peterson does a great job as well. Rick Schroder is back as Newt with an angst filled performance that reminds me of his stint on NYPD Blue. My only problem with this film (and it's really picking nits) is that I had the impression that Call wanted to be "the first man to graze cattle in Montana", and it's obvious that Dunnigan had already been there a while. A little inconsistent, but easily overlooked as you lose yourself in the fantastic tale. I especially love the apparent character growth of Jasper Fant and July Johnson. I've watched this movie several times and am ready for another sequel.

Without a doubt the most impressive recent gay oriented film I've seen. C. Jay Cox hit the nail on the head with this one. The way he handled the issues surrounding faith, family and sexuality were very well done. Casting was perfect. Wes Ramsey did a fantastic job at pulling off the character of Christian and Steve Sandvoss will knock your socks off in the role of Aaron. Both brought an incredible amount of realism to the roles and the impacts these issues have on young gay men. As a gay man who grew up in a very religious environment (though not Mormon)the identification with Aaron's character was phenomenal for me. Strongly recommend this film to anyone, faithful or not, who is interested in how young gay men have to deal with family and friends in an oft times unfriendly world. By the way, the music in this film rocks! Another great job by C. Jay Cox.

What I loved about the on-screen adaptation of The Stone Angel is that it stayed so true to the novel! Great film! As an avid reader, I find the worst thing about film adaptations is that the book somehow gets lost in translation. You can tell the Stone Angel team was careful not to let this happen with this film.<br /><br />Ellen Burstyn was an excellent casting choice for the role of Hagar and she is definitely a movie superstar. However, I think the Canadian actress (Christine Horne) chosen to play Hagar in her younger years also did an incredible job that warrants great praise. I haven't seen any of Horne's previous work but I will definitely seek it out after seeing her Stone Angel performance.<br /><br />I heard the Canadian theatrical release of The Stone Angel is going to happen in Spring or Summer 2008. I can't wait to see it on the big screen again!

Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.<br /><br />Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.