Datasets:

shawhin

/

imdb-truncated

like 5

How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.<br /><br />The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again. <br /><br />But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"

Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!<br /><br />The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!

The story turns around Antonio 'Scarface' Montana, an ultra-violent Cuban refugee who comes to the United States with less than nothing, and makes a place for himself at the top of the cocaine trade...<br /><br />As a calculating man with a conscience, and extreme ambitions, Tony strongly begins to desire the things he sees a criminal high-roller enjoying, including his luscious lover... Heights his way out of a refugee camp by enjoying the chance to stab a former taker of Freedom, takes out rival dealers, gains the confidence of an important drug lord by eclipsing a local gang boss in Miami, and eventually makes it to the highest levels of the drug organization...<br /><br />Pacino shows the results of greed and lust for power on the human psyche... He guns his way through the sunny streets of Miami where he got 'the world and everything in it.' With his ruthlessness, obscene dialog, and his negotiation skills, he begins to imagine himself invulnerable and above all others... He quickly moves deep to the world of gangs, and becomes more ruthless than anyone else can possibly imagine...<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer looks dazzling as the addicted wife with no inner life... She succeeds in portraying the trophy 'object' navigating uncertain waters with her anti-hero... Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio happens to be the best in Tony's life, the only thing that is good and pure... Her revulsion at the end of the movie is so fiery that her whole head could have blown off... Robert Loggia exhibits a weak and fearful disposition, especially when faced with Pacino as a challenger... He proves to be a less-ambitious boss in a position of power... Steven Bauer shines as the man of charm, loyal ally and faithful friend...<br /><br />The Oliver Stone-scripted 'Scarface' is a change in genre, lifting scene after scene of Hawks' classic while updating the rise-and-fall gangster saga to modern, drug-infested Miami... But, as always, the focus is on decadence, profanity and violence—memorably a sickening chainsaw murder, rather than on the psychological and social reasons for the hoodlum's psychopathic behavior...

"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.

Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.<br /><br />It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. <br /><br />What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.

*review may contain spoilers*<br /><br />predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!

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.

Being a transplanted New Yorker, I might be more critical than most in watching City Hall. But I have to say that before even getting to the story itself I was captivated by the location shooting and the political atmosphere of New York City that Director Harold Becker created.<br /><br />For example there's a reference to Woerner's Restaurant in Brooklyn where political boss Frank Anselmo likes to eat. There is or was a Woerner's Restaurant on Remsen Street in downtown Brooklyn when I lived in New York back in 1996. It was in fact particularly favored by political people in the Borough though they did have a couple of other hangouts.<br /><br />No surprise because the script was co-authored by Nicholas Pileggi who still writes both political and organized crime stories. He knows the atmosphere quite well and he sure knows how those two worlds cross as they do in this film.<br /><br />A detective played by Nestor Serrano goes for an unofficial meeting with a relative of mob boss Anthony Franciosa and things erupt and three people wind up dead, including an innocent 6 year old boy whose father was walking him to school. The story mushrooms and at the end it's reached inside City Hall itself.<br /><br />Al Pacino plays Mayor John Pappas and John Cusack is his Deputy Mayor a transplanted Louisianan, a state which has a tradition of genteel corruption itself. He's the outsider here and in trying to do damage control, Cusack finds more than he bargained for,<br /><br />Danny Aiello plays Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo and for those of you not from New York, his character is based on the late Borough President of Queens Donald Manes who was also brought down by scandal. He's very much the kind of Brooklyn politician I knew back in the day whose friendship with organized crime and favors done for them, do Aiello in. <br /><br />City Hall was the farewell performance on film for Anthony Franciosa, one of the most underrated and under-appreciated talents ever on the screen. No one watches anyone else whenever he's on.<br /><br />Al Pacino's best moment is when at the funeral of the young child killed, he takes over the proceedings and turns it into a political triumph for himself. His is a complex part, he's a decent enough man, but one caught up in the corruption it takes to rise in a place like New York. <br /><br />For those who want to know about political life in the Big Apple, City Hall is highly recommended.

This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.<br /><br />Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland.

Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.<br /><br />The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.<br /><br />As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.<br /><br />*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.<br /><br />In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!

Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.<br /><br />It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...<br /><br />From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...<br /><br />The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.

A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers.

I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.

Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. <br /><br />To give you a couple of examples: <br /><br />1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) <br /><br />2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. <br /><br />In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...<br /><br />...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.

The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.<br /><br />While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".<br /><br />It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.

It follows BLOCK-HEADS and A CHUMP AT OXFORD, two films that are hard to top. Not that SAPS AT SEA is a bad film - it is the last good comedy (unless one insists on JITTERBUGS or another of the later films) that Laurel & Hardy made. It's just that it is a toss-off little film, without the crazy destructive crescendo of BLOCK-HEADS or the astounding sight of Stan's "real" personality in A CHUMP AT OXFORD to revel in. At 57 minutes it is shorter than the other two films a bit, but that actually is not a bad point for it. It has just enough time to it to hit the right notes. It's just not as special as the other two.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie work in a factory that manufactures horns. I suspect that there was a bit of Chaplin influence in this sequence (one recalls a similar assembly-line incident in MODERN TIMES only four years earlier). Ollie's nerves finally snap, and he goes on a rampage. He goes home and (naturally) his roommate Stan does not help - Stan has a music lesson with an eccentric professor on his instrument (you've got it - a trombone). After beating up the poor professor, Ollie has problems with the incompetent janitor/engineer (Ben Turpin in a nice brief appearance), and then faces his doctor (Jimmy Finleyson) and his nerve tester (a balloon that inflates as you push air out of Ollie's stomach). Finleyson announces that it is a bad case of "horniphobia", and Ollie needs a vacation with plenty of quiet and goat's milk. They end up going to a ship but Ollie and Stan know nothing about seamanship - so they plan to sleep on the ship. Unfortunately the goat gnaws the rope until it breaks and the ship sails off. Also unfortunately, on board is Richard Cramer, an escaped dangerous criminal. This is not going to be a peaceful vacation.<br /><br />SAPS AT SEA (like A CHUMP) could have been three shorts, one at the factory, one at the apartment, and one on the boat. Each would have been a successful short, and they all make a funny film - but the stitching of the parts together shows. There are some very amusing moments in the film - the discoveries of how Turpin's ineptitude causes various mishaps with water taps and stoves in the apartment; the accidental remarks of building manager Charlie Hall when Stan or Ollie runs by him and asks for directions ("Can you help me find the basement?" asks Stan - "Certainly,you can't miss it - it's downstairs!", says Hall, who realizes what a stupid comment he just made); and Cramer's mistreatment of his two hostage slaves. He calls Ollie "Dizzy" and Stan "Daffy" (an allusion to the Dean Brothers of the St. Louis Cardinal teams of the 1930s - see Dan Dailey's THE PRIDE OF ST. LOUIS). Cramer has the boys cook him up some food - and they make a synthetic meal (boot laces for spaghetti, for instance) to get him sick to be overpowered. When he realizes what they have done, he forces them to eat the meal themselves. Their reactions are brilliant.<br /><br />SAPS AT SEA is not on par with the top line of Laurel & Hardy films, but it is a good film on the whole, and a good conclusion to the best years of their film career (1927 - 1940) when they were with Hal Roach. In the immediate couple of years before it appeared the boys and Roach had serious problems involving production costs (OUR RELATIONS, where Stan was producer on the film), artistic problems (scenes from SWISS MISS were cut meaninglessly), and contractual arguments (leading to Ollie appearing with Harry Langdon in ZENOBIA). Stan and Ollie hit back with THE FLYING DEUCES, wherein the production was not Roach's but Boris Morros'. At last a two picture deal of A CHUMP AT OXFORD and SAPS AT SEA concluded the arguments and problems - and on a high note the boys left Roach. Unfortunately they never found any subsequent film relationship with a producer as satisfactory as this had been.

Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.

I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word "Daddy", makes the entire movie worth seeing).<br /><br />"Knudsen!!!!!!!"

I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.

This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)

Having seen the hot Eliza Dushku in the pretty good Wrong Turn, I decided to pick this one up instead of Return of the Living Dead, of all movies. Haven't seen that one yet, but, considering it is one of the most highly acclaimed horror movies ever, safe to say I made the wrong choice. There is simply nothing to recommend this movie, and I am talking about the supposedly superior killer cut. It didn't even have the youthful sex appeal of mediocre to poor movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer or Valentine or Urban Legend. It simply made no sense, held no excitement, had very little interesting acting or compelling writing. The release date was apparently put off numerous times for about a year running, and the reason is obvious. The whole movie comes off as a bunch of meaningless scenes thrown together haphazardly, to meaningless effect. Get Wrong Turn instead, if you want to see Dushku. I would like to see a movie with her and the super-hot Elisabeth Harnois--but I don't think even that would have made this movie watchable. Casey Affleck, so promising in Good Will Hunting, is awful here--he seems to lack both intelligence and guts. That's enough on this one.

Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.

Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some). <br /><br />Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.<br /><br />When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together. <br /><br />Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown? <br /><br />Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???

Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from ****

Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.

I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.

It's amazing that actress P.J. Soles didn't become a big star after playing Riff Randall, #1 fan of the punk rock group the Ramones, in "Rock 'n' Roll High School". Soles is so exuberant, you don't mind she's obviously too old to still be in high school (that fact is leveled out by having all the kids look 24). The movie is a fast-paced frolic that doesn't cop-out; everything gets blown to smithereens at the end, and that's just as it should be. Mary Woronov, an innately kinky and funny presence as the Nazi-like principal, gets a great, one-of-a-kind bit at the beginning where Frisbees fly dangerously close to her head (how many takes did they use on that, or was it a fluke?) and Dey Young is very appealing as Soles' best, Kate Rambeau. The weakest link, ironically enough, in this "High School" chain-gang is the Ramones. They can't act, they're not funny, and their concert segment goes on too long. One Ramones song, "I Want You Around", is treated as a fantasy and is well captured; other incidental songs are good, particularly a rare Paul McCartney ballad heard near the beginning ("Did We Meet Somewhere Before?"). Great fun! *** from ****

Unlike other commentaries, I found this film fascinating, even with all its faults and the zombie acting of some of the actors.<br /><br />Being a technologist, I found that the experiments interesting and the hardware realistic. Although the reading of people minds via computer sounds fantastic, experiments are being conducted now to do just this. I will note that this experiments are in a very early stage, with results so far not favorable.<br /><br />The characters in the movie are well cast. The girl, although overacting a bit, looks suitable dumb. The truck driver is a a ringer for real truck drivers. The minister conveys doubt at first, (The principal investigator tells the minister that him (the minister), is not sure whether he believes that God created man or that man created God. But the minute when the chips are down, he falls back on his faith. Only the PhD plays the zombie. The secrets that they harbor are suitably appropriate for their characters. In the face of death they react as real human beings would.<br /><br />The movie is a warning against the dangers of unlimited surveillance by government. As strictly a thriller, the movie does not have enough thrills. As a scientific exercise with philosophical underpinnings it is fascinating.

Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.

I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. <br /><br />Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.<br /><br />On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.<br /><br />I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.

This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies.

I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him. <br /><br />The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport. <br /><br />Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.

This is a very engrossing BBC-TV mini-series which is loosely based upon a mysterious disappearance of a young mother, but the series is really more of a study of the assorted characters in the story, which lasts for five hours. It is thus very much an ensemble piece, where the wide variety of brilliant British actors and actresses can show off their talents. The actual characters portrayed are really 'the kind of people one does not normally meet', people so boring and nondescript that it is difficult to admire them. For instance, the lead character is a young husband (the one whose wife disappears) who has no job and no apparent interest in finding any. He lives off handouts from his parents-in-law. He was once in the Army but does not appear to have the slightest flicker of any ambition or any interests in life apart from doting on his small family. He is played by David Oyelowo, who is brilliant at the part, coming across as a totally sympathetic person, although his only activities for five hours are loving and grieving, which he does superbly, so that one wants to comfort him, as he is so obviously a nice guy. The standout performance of the whole series is unquestionably Penelope Wilton, who acts circles round everyone else in the story. She is simply incredible. She portrays a very unsympathetic woman, indeed the only character in the story who is all too familiar to everyone, namely an irrational, hysterical, self-centred, dense, querulous, blindly loving and blindly hating, elderly idiot-woman. Alas, alas, we know them too well. Wilton is one of Britain's finest actresses (see my review of her in 'Half Broken Things'). She takes a character who could have been two-dimensional and makes her four-dimensional. She is wonderfully supported by old pro Patrick Malahide, who plays her exasperated husband, and the pair of them set a high standard indeed for all the younger players. Janet McTeer, a spectacular actress when younger, has become a much less sympathetic type of person now that she is older, has coarsened in some way, and puts one off, but she redeems herself in the latter stages of the story by showing how brilliant an actress she can be when she has a chance by pulling off one of the most convincing and original drunk scenes I have ever seen on film. The big surprise is the enigmatic character Sarah, played with great depth and originality by actress Sarah Smart. She takes a character who could have been insufferably tedious and by sheer acting magic turns her into a deeply mysterious and intriguing person, about whom we wonder tirelessly for the entire five hours. She is so good at it that we end up wondering about Sarah Smart, frankly. I guess that's what happens when you really do your job properly, that people wonder where the character ends and the actress begins, if she knows herself, that is, and many do not. She has some deeply unnerving tricks with her eyes, which wobble and let us know she is unhinged, but we are not sure how or why, though we eventually learn that she had an extremely violent and traumatic childhood. Her mastery of ambiguous facial expressions is extraordinary. Rory Kinnear is amazingly convincing as an apparently hopeless fellow who lives with his mum and isn't up to much, but who turns out to have hidden depths. (I suppose most people have hidden depths, but do we want to plumb them, that is the question.) His mum is played very well indeed by Margot Leicester. A superb performance is given by Lucinda Dryzek, who plays a snotty, revolting teenage girl of the sort we all dread to meet, but who at crucial moments collapses in helpless tears and turns out to be pathetic, with all her arrogance just a pose. Three other children are also very good, Lucinda's friend, and her younger half-brother and half-sister. The younger siblings may be very dim indeed as characters in the story (they seem unable to say anything particularly articulate, being hopeless witnesses to the disappearance), with little to recommend them but their sweet natures, but that is conveyed to wonderful effect by Lee Massey as the boy and Tyler Anthony as the girl. Harriet Walter has a small role, but we do not get to see much of her, which is a shame, as she is such a fine actress that she was wasted here. One could go on, but one must draw a line somewhere. The series manages to be strangely fascinating because of the depth of portrayal of all these essentially uninteresting people caught up in a web of intense anxiety and suspense.

I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.

When one thinks of 1950s science fiction films one thinks of the sort of schlocky black and white B films that were parodied on the old Mystery Science Theater 3000 television show. Yet, while there were far more films like Plan 9 From Outer Space and Robot Monster than good films, the 1950s did have some very good, if not great, science fiction films like The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, War Of The Worlds, and The Thing From Another World. Yet, the best of the bunch, for its literacy and production values, was undoubtedly MGM's first big foray into A level science fiction, Forbidden Planet, released in 1956. It was a 98 minute color film, directed by Fred M. Wilcox, that featured then state of the art special effects, and was endowed with a very good screenplay by Cyril Hume, from a screen treatment called Fatal Planet, by Irving Block and Allen Adler, who adapted aspects of William Shakespeare's The Tempest into it.<br /><br />The film drew raves when it was released, for its Oscar nominated special effects, its all electronic music score, by Louis and Bebe Barron (although credited as Electronic Tonalities, to avoid music guild fees), vivid matte paintings- inspired by Chesley Bonestell, and the famed Monster Of The Id (MOTI), which was animated by an animator, Joshua Meador, on loan from the Walt Disney studio. Even more famous was the appearance of Robby The Robot, in his first role in either film or television. Later he would appear in the film The Invisible Boy- included in this DVD as a bonus, as well as several appearances in the 1960s sci fi TV shows The Twilight Zone, Night Gallery, and Lost In Space- with whose own robot he is often confused, and a cameo appearance in the 1984 film Gremlins.<br /><br />The tale is simple, but elegantly constructed, and filled with humorous asides that leaven the forced 'love story' aspect in the film. In the 23rd Century, the United Planets Cruiser C-57D- a flying saucer, led by Commander J.J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen- yes he was once a leading man type before his Police Squad days), is en route to the planet Altair IV, to investigate what happened to the crew of the Bellerophon, sent to the planet twenty years earlier. After a year's journey, there they encounter the lone survivor of the party, Doctor Edward Morbius (Walter Pidgeon), the Prospero stand-in- a philologist, his gorgeous blond daughter Altaira (Anne Francis)- the Miranda character in a pre 1960s miniskirt, and Robby the Robot, the domestic servant who is the Calibanian counterpart. Morbius warns the crew of a mysterious force that killed the Bellerophon party in their first year, yet he was immune to it…. All in all, it's a technically good film- especially with some rear projections and matte paintings, and the absurdity of the adult reactions to Timmy's and Robby's exploits borders an Dalian surreal absurdity. Yet, it's manifest that the filmmakers had no sense of the sublime absurdity the film conjures, for it's played straight, thus making it even funnier. As for the main feature? Forbidden Planet deserves all its kudos. It's not a perfect film, but it's a great way to spend a couple of hours, and far better than Star Wars, which although made twenty years later seems much more outdated, and juvenile. Only such films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Alien and Aliens, and the first two Terminator films, have really equaled or surpassed this classic in depth and effects.<br /><br />It's worth knowing that, despite Forbidden Planet's 'happy ending', there is the possibility that the MOTI is still dormant within Alta, as well. After all, she is her father's daughter, and had an even more vivid nightmare than her father when the MOTI attacked the ship a second time. Also, the film wisely only 'shows' the MOTI once, and never shows the Krel, for the imagination can always conjure greater scares than the best special effects. The film also makes good use of narrative ellipses to condense the tale, something that far more realistic art films often fail to do. Forbidden Planet is one of those rare films that both defines yet transcends its era- unlike other sci fi films which were rather obvious Cold War allegories. Watch it, and you will agree, as well as sleep a little less easy. But, even if you don't, there's still the scene of Anne Francis skinnydipping. That alone is timeless.

Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say "I love you" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.<br /><br />One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of "Bent". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.<br /><br />Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and "Friends". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting "blowed up" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in "Friends".<br /><br />This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.

Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.<br /><br />Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.<br /><br />As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).<br /><br />In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.

I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.<br /><br />I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.<br /><br />The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.

A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)<br /><br />I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. <br /><br />Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. <br /><br />On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. <br /><br />In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. <br /><br />In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.

For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.

...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity. <br /><br />Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me. <br /><br />This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them! <br /><br />To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it. <br /><br />This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy. <br /><br />Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.

Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead.

Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.<br /><br />Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! <br /><br />**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox

Band Camp was awful, The Naked Mile was a little better, and this third straight to DVD in the American Pie franchise seems the same quality as the predecessor. Basically Erik Stifler (John White) split from his girlfriend after losing his virginity, and now him and Mike 'Cooze' Coozeman (Jake Siegel) are joining Erik's cousin Dwight (Steve Talley) at college. With the promise of many parties, plenty of booze, and enough hot chicks at the Beta House, they only have fifty listed tasks to carry out to become official privileged members. But a threat comes into sight with the rivals, GEK ("Geek") House, led by power-hungry nerd (and sheep shagger) Edgar (Tyrone Savage) offering bigger and better than what Beta have. To settle it once and for all, Beta and Gek go into battle with the banned, for forty years, Greek Games to beat each other in, with the loser moving out. The last champion of the games, Noah Levenstein aka Jim's Dad (the only regular Eugene Levy) runs the show, which sees the people unhooking bras, a gladiator duel floating on water, catching a greased pig, Russian Roulette in the mouth with cartridges of aged horse spunk, wife carrying and drinking a full keg of alcohol (with puking not disqualifying). It all comes to the sudden death, with a guy getting stripper lap dancing, and they have to resist cumming, Beta House win when Edgar cums with a girl dressed as a sheep on his lap. Also starring Flubber's Christopher McDonald as Mr. Stifler, Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Dan Petronijevic as Bull, Nic Nac as Bobby, Christine Barger as Margie, Italia Ricci as Laura Johnson, Moshana Halbert as Sara Coleman, Sarah Power as Denise, Andreja Punkris as Stacy and Jordan Prentice as Rock. The nudity amount is very slightly increased, as is the grossness of the jokes, and I could guess it being rated one star out of five, but I like it. Adequate!

Whenever I see most reviews it's called 'a misfire for Eddie Murphy'. These critics want to take a look at some of the stuff he's doing these days, and maybe soften their stance in retrospect... "The Golden Child" is not highbrow entertainment, but thanks to some of the cast it breaths new life into old clichés, and gives Murphy one of his best roles. I don't understand the pervading lack of 'love' for its efforts, at all. Perhaps it was released at a time when the establishment had grown weary of knockabout, thrill-a-minute adventures? Steven Spielberg started it with Indiana Jones; it's unfair to make this one a scapegoat when what is possibly its biggest sin is also utterly harmless. There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to capitalise on trends.<br /><br />Yes it's silly, but even an occasional observer should be able to understand that 'ridiculous' is where Hollywood's idea of mysticism begins and ends. What's more important than believability with a story like this is that the audience have entertaining tour guides on hand to show them the mysterious sights. Michael Ritchie and Eddie Murphy fit the bill for this capacity just fine. My advice to you is to buy the ticket and take the ride.

Tintin and I recently aired as an episode of PBS's P.O.V. series. It's based on a taped interview of Georges Remi a.k.a. Herge, Tintin's creator, from 1971 in which in discusses his various experiences publishing his popular character, first in a Catholic newspaper, then in his own series of comic books. Awesome sweeping views of various comic pages and surreal images of Herge's dreams. I first encountered Tintin in the pages of Children's Digest at my local elementary school library reading The Secrets of the Unicorn. My mom later got a subscription to CD and I read the entire Red Rackham's Treasure every month in 1978. I remember seeing some Tintin comic books in a local book store after that but for some reason I didn't get any probably because I was 12 and I thought I was outgrowing them. I do have Breaking Free, a book written and drawn by J. Daniels, published in 1989, six years after Herge's death. Haven't read it yet. This film also covers the artist's personal life as when he left his first wife after his affair with a colorist in his employ (whom he later married). Her name is Fanny and she is interviewed here. If you love Tintin and his creator, this film is definitely worth a look. Update: 9/4/07-I've now read Breaking Free. Tintin and The Captain are the only regular characters that appear here and they are tailored to the anti-capitalist views of Mr. Daniels with Tintin portrayed as a rabble rouser with a chip on his shoulder who nevertheless cares for The Captain who he's staying with. The Captain here is just trying to make ends meet with a wife and daughter that he loves dearly. They and other construction workers vow to strike after a fellow employee dies from a faulty equipment accident. The whole thing takes place in England with working-class cockney accents intact. Not the kind of thing Herge would approve of but an interesting read nonetheless. Oh, yes, dog Snowy only appears in the top left corner of the cover (which has Tintin running over the police!) and the dedication page.

So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.

I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.

I refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)

Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there… Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc… the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else.

Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out!

I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be "laughting at Blacks", while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites. <br /><br />I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.<br /><br />This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including "A Mighty Wind"

I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.

I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.<br /><br />I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.<br /><br />What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film. <br /><br />Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out.

The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.

''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.<br /><br />Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at.

Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),"Connie & Carla",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),"Taking Lives",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),"Kinsey",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),"CSI-Vegas TV Series", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain.

Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost.

I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!<br /><br />This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.

Why aren't more films (especially American) more like Meatball Machine? <br /><br />This is my first official on-line review and I am charged with "electrical ecstasy" after having chosen "Meatball Machine" as my first endeavor. This is a review, so I'll try to stick to mere reflection and gut emotion.<br /><br />I mean, this is one creative piece of work even though it is clearly inspired by the now classic TETSUO! So what if it's not all original? I own both of these films and though Tetsuo is one strange son of a bitch, Meatball Machine is far superior and can be sat through without the strong desire to indulge in a dose of mind altering drugs to clarify film significance. Meatball Machine is as elaborate in it's story as it is in its high influx of blood and gore. Thank you Jesus for Japanese Cinema!<br /><br />Simply put, the last time my dreams were overrun by visions of horror happened after watching Nightmare on Elm Street when I was 7 or so. I could picture in my dreams a tongue coming out of a telephone for weeks on end. This time (at 31) my dreams were pleasantly awe inspiring.<br /><br />In this film human bodies are host to Aliens whose sole purpose is to try and fulfill their never ending quench for human flesh and blood. Humans become flesh eating cyborgs!!! There's more!!! Fight scenes!! Great Music!! Great point-of-view shots! Decent acting by the woman Cyborg (at least better than her male counterpart). The fight seen in the end is worth watching ten or twenty times.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget to mention it's a Love story! Wow, I hate love stories but this takes the cake!<br /><br />I can't wait to have friends over to watch this film once more just to see the reaction on their faces. Sadly, I took time to write this review because I'm afraid most friends and family wont understand Meatball Machine. The truth is America as a whole is not prepared for Meatball Machine.<br /><br />Lastly, My wife walked in while I was watching the climactic fight scene at the end and she was speechless. Normally she says something like "why are you watching that junk?" This time she had nothing to say. I was glad! <br /><br />This is not junk. This isn't just SPLATTER (splatter for the sake of splatter is also great). This is Art my friends. Art.<br /><br />CHACHO

This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.

Some people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.

Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.<br /><br />Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.<br /><br />In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.<br /><br />Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.<br /><br />

Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.<br /><br />On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.<br /><br />I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.

`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.<br /><br />`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.<br /><br />The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.<br /><br />The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress. <br /><br />A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.

I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted. <br /><br />It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.<br /><br />I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their "tea"!!<br /><br />Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story!

Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy!

<br /><br />Ok, well I rented this movie while I was bed ridden hopped up on pain killers, and let me say, It didn't help the film any.<br /><br />The film is about a man who buys a car as he is going through a midlife crisis, he loves the car more than anything around him, one day his wife decides to borrow the car. Since I don't want to spoil (not that there was anything to spoil) I shall let your imagination figure out the "Zany" (and I use that word lightly) antics that follow.<br /><br />I had to fight to stay awake through this snore a minute sleeper of a film, and I would like to say that if you are venturing to the movie store and are thinking about being adventurous, please don't, it's a waste of the film it was printed on.<br /><br />Then again I could be wrong...

I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.<br /><br />I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:<br /><br />1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...<br /><br />I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...<br /><br />* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.<br /><br />That's about it...

Quentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish "Ken Loach" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely "Purely Belter," which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.

Let me make one thing clear….for the most part, the mentality of those who run the show in Hollywood frankly p*sses me right off in general and even more specifically in relation to its treatment of much loved, iconic characters from the pages of comic books. Why? Well let's take a typical Hollywood executive board meeting scenario to illustrate shall we…..<br /><br />Executive no.1 'Hey there's lots of dollars to be gleaned from superhero flicks these days.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'Good point, let's make one with haste then! – We'll do a lucky dip in a hat and pick out a superhero at random to base a film upon!' (The dip takes place and a famous superheroes name is pulled out) <br /><br />Executive no.1 'Great! Now who can we get to play the part?' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'Who's a big box office star at the moment?' <br /><br />Executive no.1 '*name of big actor* is the in thing this week.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'But does he really suit the role? I mean he doesn't resemble the character whatsoever.' <br /><br />Executive no.1 'Who cares?! He's a big name; We'll make the film with him in it anyway.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'You're quite right! And besides we'll fill the entire film so chock full of glitzy special effects to appease the moronic masses that no one will ever question it anyway!'<br /><br />The above scenario clearly illustrates one of the reasons I generally loath most modern superhero movies. All style, no substance and simply pathetic casting of the iconic leads. Of course to be equitable, there are exceptions to the above rule; when Hollywood does get it right – take the casting of the original (and still easily the best!) Superman; Christopher Reeve and more recently Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen in the X-Men films.<br /><br />But back to the general negative traits displayed by Hollywood today…..wouldn't it be wonderful if our studio executives were to ALWAYS choose actors who actually suited the roles? Well in this less than ideal world, one filmmaker does just this believe it or not, by casting actors based upon their genuine resemblance to their comic book counterparts. His name is Sandy Collora. Sadly (but typically) Hollywood has not as of yet allowed Collora to direct a full length film but luckily for us, he has given us tantalizing glimpses of what the finished outcome would likely look like in the form of two (as of yet) famous super hero short features. One is the superb Batman:Dead End and the other is this mock trailer for an entirely fictitious film called Worlds Finest.<br /><br />Well, let's not mince our words here – this is absolutely awesome stuff!<br /><br />The casting of Mr. Universe winner and male model Michael O'Hearn, (who looked similarly awesome but was utterly wasted in the lackluster Barbarian) makes for the most perfect choice to play the iconic man of steel. In fact, in terms of physical resemblance, there has undoubtedly never been a closer approximation to the comic character.<br /><br />Added to this Clark Bartram is back fresh from his splendid portrayal as the Dark Knight in Batman:Dead End; Again, yet another hugely judicious piece of casting!<br /><br />What can I say? – If only this was indeed a real, full length film! Hollywood studio executives – take note! THIS is how it should be done!<br /><br />As a final note, I am once again intrigued by the vastly split reactions this short film has evoked from fans. Tellingly, the most acerbic and vehemently adverse reactions against it clearly come once more (as similarly with Batman: Dead End) from a younger, less cinematically experienced audience; a fact betrayed by their somewhat grammatically primitive rants and liberal usage of base diction. Such an unfortunate state of closed mindedness is indeed a sad phenomenon albeit one that our aforementioned studio executives in Hollywood, will no doubt derive great satisfaction from. After all, these very same misguided individuals are in all probability the exact same sort of CGI addicted, popcorn stuffing imbeciles that revel in the majority of crap that Hollywood churns out by the deluge these days.

This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.<br /><br />Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.<br /><br />This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk. <br /><br />!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!

Boring. Minimal plot. No character development. I went into this movie with high expectations from the book. It COULD have been an awesome movie. It COULD have probably become a cult classic. Nope, it was a giant let-down. It was poorly cast and had horrible special effects. It was difficult to determine who were the bad guys: the rebels or the military or the church or all of them? I am still left puzzled by certain mini-plots from the movie. I am left dumbfounded as to certain aspects of this so-called "prophecy", which is never really FULLY explained. I felt like I was watching a corny episode of a mini-series on the sci-fi channel. It seemed very much like a made-for-TV movie. Don't go see this movie. It is a waste of time AND money.

I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.<br /><br />Bluto

Saw this film in August at the 27th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention in Milwaukee, WI, it's first public screening. THE FILM IS GREAT!!! Derek Luke is wonderful as Antwone Fisher. This young actor has a very bright future. The real Antwone Fisher did a great job writing the film and Denzel's direction is right on the money. See it opening weekend. You won't be disappointed.

I have a six month old baby at home and time to time she fights sleep really bad. One morning she was having a particular difficult time getting to sleep when the doodle bops theme song came on T.V. She stopped crying almost instantly, and for the rest of the show was content. I sat her in her bouncy seat and watched her kick her legs, swing her arms, and actually laugh at this show. The kept her entertained and happy the entire time. I also got a video of them so that at times when my little one is flustered I have something to calm her. Granted, late at night if she awakes with colic to fuss the doodle bops are not her cup of tea, but they sure do come in handy when I need a little time to do housework,etc. The biggest surprise about the doodle bops is that my child doesn't even like watching T.V. She'd rather be in the floor playing with a toy or with our small toy poodle than watch T.V. yet, the doodle bops have totally captured her attention. I don't know if she will continue to like them in the future but for now she's attached.

50 years old, this musical comedy fantasy might look its age, but it wears it with dignity.<br /><br />This film is still great fun. Crosby was never really romantic lead material, but he delivers the material with the lightly humorous edge it needs. Bendix plays broad and is huge fun in a part which calls upon his strengths. Hardwicke - how joyous for a knight of the realm - a genuine one - to throw himself into caperings like this with such abandon. And Rhonda Fleming enjoys herself in the least showy of the main roles. Only Murvyn Vye disappoints as an unconvincing Merlin.<br /><br />Though not a musical, the songs are very good, and the "dance" routine accompanying Busy Doing Nothing is perfect - funny, appropriate, dexterous without being challenging, and making a virtue out of Crosby's musical movement which, let's be fair, was inherently amusing due ti its never being his greatest strength.<br /><br />The colour is fine, the sound is a little muddy in places.<br /><br />And the story - well, it takes some liberties with the original, but I suspect that Mr Clemens might well have been pleased with the result.

This is a musical adaptation of Dicken's "Oliver Twist". For the most part, the original story has been maintained, though for the flow of the film certain subplots (such as the summer he spent recuperating and the half-brother) are omitted. The biggest difference in the film and the story is that by the end of the book, Fagin is hanged--an ending very different from this musical film.<br /><br />This is a one of a kind musical--one whose style and scope really hasn't been matched before or since. Not only are the songs often quite singable and memorable, but the choreography of the film is a sight to behold. Whereas in most musicals a few people or perhaps even a small group are choreographed dancing, here the numbers often run into the hundreds or perhaps more. It's truly a sight to see and I was fortunate enough to have seen it in the theater when it debuted and is one of my earliest childhood memories. Having just seen it again a few moments ago, I would have to say that the film only got better over time. Great sets, wonderful acting and singing--this is a special treat that is hard not to love.<br /><br />By the way, when I saw the film again tonight, I was surprised by just how high and feminine Mark Lester's singing was for the film. Well, according to IMDb, his singing was dubbed by a girl and this would definitely account for his voice.

Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway.

I very much looked forward to this movie. Its a good family movie; however, if Michael Landon Jr.'s editing team did a better job of editing, the movie would be much better. Too many scenes out of context. I do hope there is another movie from the series, they're all very good. But, if another one is made, I beg them to take better care at editing. This story was all over the place and didn't seem to have a center. Which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. I enjoy the story of Willie and Missy; they're both great role models. Plus, the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.

This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.<br /><br />The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.

I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.

This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.<br /><br />Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10.

I have, "Things to Come," on D.V.D. and it's very clear compared to my VHS version. The audio is fair, but can be hard to understand at times. <br /><br />I liked the movie so much that I searched for a copy of the book and found it.It gave details of why some things happened. The best things about the movie are the small things that I didn't notice at first. Such as, John Cabal playing with a toy airplane at a Christmass party, like it was a dive bomber, out dateing sea power by naming a battleship,"Dinosuar." Ships sunk by air-power, an undeclared enemy sneak attack by airplanes. Swept flying wing planes. Strong rolls for the women through the entire movie. <br /><br />There are more, see the movie to enjoy them.

Why did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?<br /><br />One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't. <br /><br />I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.

Damn, was that a lot to take in. I was pretty much mesmerised throughout. It was pretty perfect, though I would say the editing had a lot to do with that. I can't believe this guy stayed on good terms with the lot of them (Anton especially) to get all of this footage without any serious... beef. The Dandy's did come off well-together, middle-class kids who took advantage of their situation (and rightly so!). I felt bad for Jonestown and especially for Anton, which maybe wasn't what a lot of other people felt. Great piece of film-making and great choice of subject(s). I recommend this to any music/film fan. You'll probably learn something about film-making.

It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.<br /><br />The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.<br /><br />Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.<br /><br />The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.<br /><br />There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.<br /><br />The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.<br /><br />This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.

I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.<br /><br />I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.<br /><br />Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.<br /><br />Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.<br /><br />Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's "Audition" and "Suicide Club" fame?<br /><br />Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.<br /><br />10/10

The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.

good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !<br /><br />much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things: <br /><br />among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).<br /><br />had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.<br /><br />the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).<br /><br />forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now.

ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film will be more easily understood if we go back to that time in life. During the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert do not represent an orgy but the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and appreciated the magnificent way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as the more accurate symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A depicts the death of the dream by these difficulties winning the game. In my point of view a film to remember.

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

with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned..

The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.<br /><br />Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.<br /><br />Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.<br /><br />At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.

Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...<br /><br />The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.

Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.<br /><br />My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.<br /><br />Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream… The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered… The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know…

I had seen 'Kalifornia' before (must be about 10 years ago) and I still remember to be very impressed by it. That's why I wanted to see it again and all I can say is that it still hasn't lost its power, even though I'm used to a lot more when it comes to movies than that I was ten years ago.<br /><br />'Kalifornia' tells the tale of the writer Brian Kessler and his girlfriend Carrie Laughlin, a photographer, who want to move to California. But instead of stepping on a plain and flying right to the state where they say it never rains, they choose to make a trip by car. He wants to write a book about America's most famous serial killers and she will make the matching pictures. But because their car uses an enormous amount of petrol, they decide to take another couple with them, so they can spread the costs of the trip. Only one couple has answered the add, so they will automatically be the lucky ones. But they haven't met each other yet and when seeing the other couple for the first time, when their trip has already started, Carrie is shocked. Without wanting to be prejudiced, she can only conclude that Early Grayce and Adele Corners are poor white trailer park trash. She definitely doesn't want them in her car, but Brian doesn't really mind to take them with them and decides to stop and pick them up anyway. At first the couple doesn't seem to be that bad after all, but gradually Early Grayce changes from a trashy hillbilly into a remorseless murderer...<br /><br />Not only is the story very impressive, so is the acting from our four leads. Brad Pitt is incredible as Early Grayce. His performance in this movie may well be his best ever. The same for Juliette Lewis. She plays the childish and naive girlfriend that doesn't want to hear a bad word about her Early and does that really very well. But David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes are a surprise as well. They both did a very good job and I really wonder why we never heard anything from Forbes again since this movie, because she really proves to have a lot of talent.<br /><br />Overall this is a very good and impressive psychological thriller with a very powerful story, but because of the graphic violence, I can imagine that it may not be to everybody's taste (although I don't really see another way how to portray a serial killer in a believable way). Personally I really liked this movie a lot and the violence never bothered me (it's a part of the story that's too important to be left out). I reward this movie with an 8/10.

This is one of the first independent movies I've ever seen. For such a very low budget, it was done well; as an insomniac myself, I can sympathize with the main character, although my sleeping problems have never been as intense or as disturbing. <br /><br />Well directed, well acted, of a subject that I haven't seen much in theaters, lighting and set both perfect for the movie setting. There are few noticeable goofs, but they may be intended; you'll see after you watch the movie. The movie is very personal, and worth watching twice. No movie is flawless, but a Hollywood version couldn't do the story better. all in all, 8/10.

Hybrid starts as water treatment planet security guard Aaron Scates (Cory Monteith) is involved in an accident which leaves him blind. Luckily it just so happens that brilliant scientist Dr. Andrea Hewitt (Justine Bateman) who works for Olaris has developed an operation to transplant organs from one species to another, Hewitt decides Aaron would be perfect for her first human experiment. Hewitt & her team transplant the eyes of a Wolf into Aaron & he miraculously regains his sight. Brilliant, right? Well, no not really since Aaron starts to go mad as he sees random images of Wolves & starts to develop a lust for blood. Aaron escapes the Olaris building & goes on the run but he is too valuable to just let go & a full scale search is mounted to capture him...<br /><br />Directed by Yelena Lanskaya this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel offering that is quite simply put terrible in every possible way, I think it probably started out life as a straight 'Creature Feature' but ended up as one of the most boring & dull Sci-Fi Channel films I have seen that doesn't even feature any sort of monster or creature. Hybrid is awful, the script is terrible & I am not even sure who it was meant to appeal to. The initial set-up is OK with Aaron getting Wolf eyes but then Hybrid ditches the sci-fi elements & becomes some sort of horrible drama as it focuses entirely on Aaron's mental state as he wonders around doing nothing in particular with some Native American woman. Yep, you don't think the Sci-Fi Channel could make a film about Wolves & put loads of rubbish about Native American mythology in there as well do you? The dynamics of the character's is bizarre, Aaron is shown as the persecuted hero yet he is the only character to kill anyone in the film & is a fairly unlikable, ungrateful & annoying person while Dr. Hewitt is shown as the evil scientist yet she gives Aaron back his sight & does nothing but try to help him. I mean Aaron is given back the gift of sight yet Hewitt is the villain? Also the regular Sci-Fi Channel staple of US military intervention is present, the problem is why do they want Aaron so badly? He isn't a soldier & while he has Wolves eyes to help him see in the dark he's utterly unremarkable. The script can't make it's mind up whether it's all in Aaron's mind or it's real, the ending is hilariously bad with a half naked (rememeber this was made for telly) Aaron running through a forest with a pack of Wolves set to some horrible music that I think is supposed to be emotional but makes it even more funny. There are so many things wrong with Hybrid, it's slower than hell, there's virtually no action, there's no Werewolves & the film goes round in circles trying to get into Aaron's mind yet it's all so ridiculous, silly & boring you won't care one bit & there's never any explanation as to why despite just having Wolves eyes transplanted Aaron starts to develop other Wolf senses.<br /><br />As a diabetic I have problems with my eyes, hell I have had major surgery on my right eye & I can guarantee you that after an operation your eye would be puffed up, you wouldn't be able to open it & it would hurt like hell yet despite having eye transplants as soon as Aaron wakes up in bed his eyes are perfect with no swelling or even redness. There are no special effects, no blood or gore or violence & nothing to excite you. In fact now I think about it there's nothing even remotely horror or sci-fi feeling about this, it feels like a drab film of the week.<br /><br />Filmed in Manitoba in Canada the film looks OK but is bland & forgettable. The acting is poor from all involved none of whom I have seen before & hopefully never again.<br /><br />Hybrid is a terrible film that is obviously marketed as some Werewolve 'Creature Feature' but is far from that & most people will really struggle to get to the awful ending which will probably have you in stitches.