Datasets:

shawhin

/

imdb-truncated

like 5

Having to have someone hold your hand whenever walk up or down stairs? Having others taste your food before you eat it? Facing an over-bearing mother? These are only a few of the obstacles which the young Victoria has to deal with in this film (there's also the various power struggles going on, as well as attempts on her life). Needless to say, it makes for very fascinating and informative viewing.<br /><br />I had only previously seen Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (and little else). As she was in that film, she is once again the standout here. I was extremely impressed with her portrayal of the young Victoria, and thought she handled the role very well. She makes the transition from the young Victoria we meet at the start of the film to the Queen Victoria she becomes later entirely believable. Blunt is perfectly cast in the role, showing all the different sides (from the vulnerable, to the strong, from the young Victoria who makes mistakes to the Queen who takes control). Not enough can be said about Emily Blunt in this role. She's - quite simply - exquisite, commanding your attention every second she's on screen. She keeps you transfixed up to and including the final shot of the film.<br /><br />Rupert Friend proves to also be well-cast as Victoria's love interest (and eventual husband), Prince Albert. The actors have nice chemistry and you absolutely believe in their developing relationship. They have their disagreements, but you can tell that they are in love. Blunt and Friend are excellent in every scene that they share and keep you interested in what is happening between Victoria and Albert. The other actors in the film are also very good. Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy and Jim Broadbent as King William. There is not a single bad performance in this film. The less-focused-upon people are well-portrayed also, given what little screen time they have. Even Victoria's dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Dash) is memorable and makes an impact in the film.<br /><br />Although the movie does tend to skip more than a few aspects of Victoria's life - especially at the end - and instead *tells* us what happened (with her and Albert) on screen, what matters the most is what we actually *see*. This is, after all, a film about 'The Young Victoria' (not 'The Middle-Aged Victoria', nor 'The Old Victoria'). While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.<br /><br />The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it. It's exceptionally shot and, unlike a lot of films these days, this movie is actually a good length, as it doesn't run on so long that you lose interest or feel that it's needlessly being drawn out.<br /><br />It goes without saying that what makes this film so great is Emily Blunt. She's in fine form here, turning in another excellent performance and elevating this film above what it might have been, had another actress been cast in this rather important/historic role. This is one finely-crafted film, with excellent performances that should definitely be seen. If you have an appreciation for a fascinating look at a woman who was extremely significant in history, this is a must-see.

I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.

I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. <br /><br />It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.<br /><br />And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?<br /><br />It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.

This is one of the all-time great "Our Gang" shorts. Spanky is at his very cutest and funniest, and the babies that he get's left to babysit are also hilarious. Tiny Spanky is coerced by the gang into watching all their little siblings. The opening shot of them all in baby carriages, being entertained by various things hung by the gang from fishing poles is a beautiful gag.<br /><br />Spanky's appearance wearing his huge toy knife when asked to babysit by the older fellows is priceless, as is his response --"Hey, where do you get that stuff -- I don't take care of no babies!" The tiny fellow saying "remarkable" throughout the film, all the beautiful sight gags, and Spanky telling the babies "all about Tarzan" add up to make this one of the best "Our Gang"'s you'll ever see.

An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in "those days". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.

A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.

This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.

This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.

CONTAINS SPOILER With the possible exception of John Wayne, no other actor sat taller in the saddle in Westerns than James Stewart, and this movie proves it. This superb tale of revenge centered around a Winchester rifle,has only one weak spot I can think of: the casting of Will Geer as a very unEarp-like Wyatt Earp. The casting of the villains was good:Stephen McNally, as surly Dutch Henry,Dan Duryea as Waco Johnny Dean, and John McIntire(versatile at playing both good guys and bad guys) as a slick gun runner. The showdown between Stewart and McNally on the cliffs is great! I'd stack this Western against the whole crop of Westerns made today. They wouldn't stand a chance!

Part of what was so great about the classic Looney Tunes cartoons was their irreverence and how they weren't afraid to do anything that they wanted. In this case, Marvin the Martian has an assignment to bring back an earthling. Sure enough, he comes across Bugs Bunny, who warns of a mutiny on the part of Marvin's dog. After Marvin finally traps Bugs - by means of an Acme strait jacket-ejecting bazooka! - Bugs has more stuff planned for the voyage back to Mars. What I mean is, if you thought that it was a major change in the Solar System when they stripped Pluto of its planet status, then you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, "The Hasty Hare" goes all out. How they buy Acme products in outer space is probably beyond most people, but the point here - I mean "hare" - is to have fun. And believe me, you definitely will. After all, a little space-out never hurt anyone.

First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.<br /><br />What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.<br /><br />I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).

It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.<br /><br />It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.<br /><br />However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.

An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of "les roseaux savages" (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude.

I loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.<br /><br />The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments.

Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.

This was the second entry in the regular Columbo series, and it holds up well today. As I am able to look at it closely now on DVD and see how it is constructed, I am very impressed with the direction of Bernard L. Kowalski (who directed the fine MACHO CALLAHAN as well as countless TV episodes)--watch how the post-murder actions of the killer are shown on a split-screen effect on his two eyeglasses, watch how the murder itself is shown in montage fashion, watch the point-of-view shot from the perspective of the corpse. Also, the wild but impressive avant-garde musical score from noted jazzman Gil Melle was incredible and helped so much to create atmosphere. And the supporting performance of Brett Halsey as the golf pro was wonderful--such subtlety and complexity in a role that nine out of ten times would be a one-dimensional cutout. The "formula" had not yet been set when this episode was filmed, so there are still some surprises in Columbo's methods. Of course, Falk, Robert Culp, and Ray Milland are the highest-quality actors and it's a pleasure to see them work--all men are familiar from many other roles yet lose themselves in their characters here. In all, this entry in the Columbo series--and MANY of the others--are as well-crafted as a very good feature film.

This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10

The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.

I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.

I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script...

This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.<br /><br />In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.<br /><br />It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas.

Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.

I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them. <br /><br />The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.<br /><br />Kudos for this achievement.

The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.<br /><br />The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.<br /><br />When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.

Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you. <br /><br />Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once. <br /><br />2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.

Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies.

While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!

"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.

"Vanilla Sky" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, "Abre Los Ojos" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.

If this movie should be renamed, it should be "The Jackasses of Hazzard." To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.<br /><br />I have been a fan of the "Dukes" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the "Dukes" into trailer trash.<br /><br />Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.<br /><br />The "Dukes" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.<br /><br />My grade: F

Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End

At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.

This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.

This is one of the first and best Columbos, starring Robert Culp and Ray Milland. Robert Culp appeared on another Columbo, as did several other villains, including Patrick McGoohan, William Shatner, and Jack Cassidy. Ray Milland also made a later appearance.<br /><br />In this one, Ray Milland is convinced his beautiful wife, played by Patricia Crowley, is having an affair, so he hires Culp to investigate. Culp has a blackmailing business on the side, so he gives Milland a fake report and threatens Crowley with the real one if she doesn't pay up. They get into a huge fight in Culp's home, and she winds up murdered. Enter Columbo.<br /><br />Culp does everything he can to get Columbo off the case, including offering him a job, but Columbo is on to him from the beginning.<br /><br />Excellent episode.

I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.<br /><br />Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.

Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.<br /><br />I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the "full faith and credibility" clause. It's "full faith and credit," by the way!<br /><br />This also reminds me of "The Conrad Boys," where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.

The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

The original DeMille movie was made in 1938 with Frederic March. A very good film indeed. Hollywood's love of remakes brings us a fairly interesting movie starring Yul Brynner. He of course was brilliant as he almost always seemed to be in all of his movies. Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson was a stroke of genius. However, the movie did tend to get a little long in places. It does not move at the pace of the 1938 version. Still, it is a fun movie that should be seen at least once.

Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said

The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.<br /><br />However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.<br /><br />It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.

This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.<br /><br />This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house"). <br /><br />Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance.

This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt. <br /><br />Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.<br /><br />The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.<br /><br />The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as "Fearless".<br /><br />So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.

At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.<br /><br />In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps? <br /><br />The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.<br /><br />It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...<br /><br />So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.

I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends!

It's a good show, and I find it funny. Finally the bad Latin stereo types are over! ¡Gracias, Señor Lopez! I love this show, and I just started watching it about three months ago. The whole concept about a Latin family TV show really amazed me. I am surprised that finally Latinos have a good shot to be on TV. This show is probably one the best I've seen, it's funny, heartwarming, touchy, and nice.

A team of archaeologists uncover a real treasure – the Crown of the Queen of Sheeba. From Egypt, the crown is to be transferred via steamship to San Francisco. But it won't be an easy journey. There are plenty of would-be thieves who would love to get their hands on the priceless jewels contained in the crown. Fortunately for all involved, Mr. Moto is on hand to guard the crown on its journey. However, that doesn't mean someone won't try to get their hands on the treasure.<br /><br />After the disappointment of Mr. Moto's Gamble, I went into Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation hoping for the best, but, admittedly, fearing the worst. But within the first 10 seconds of the film, I knew I would find it more enjoyable. I'm a sucker for a 1930s style mystery that features anything to do with archaeological digs in Egypt. And seeing Moto disguised as a German archaeologist (Imagine that, Peter Lorre playing a German?), the beginning scenes really drew me in. While the movie may have quickly shifted to the less exotic San Francisco, it remained just as enjoyable. Dark, sinister characters lurking in the rainy night; gunshots fired from open windows that narrowly miss the hero's head; sophisticated and supposed foolproof alarm systems just begging for someone to test them; and master criminals believed to be dead – these are the kind of elements found in a lot of the really good 1930s mysteries that I love. And Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation's got 'em all. A couple other bonuses for me included the always enjoyable Lionel Atwill in a nice little role, comic relief from G.P. Huntley that's actually funny, and a return to form for Mr. Moto. I've already mentioned his disguise in the movie's opening scenes, well the athletic Moto comes out near the film's finale. Moto is a like a Whirling Dervish of activity as he goes after his prey. All this and I haven't even mentioned the wonderful performance turned in by Lorre. Any way you look at it, Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation is a winner.<br /><br />As much as I hate that the Mr. Moto series had to end after this installment, it's understandable when you think about it. WWII was just around the corner. And after Pearl Harbor, a movie with a Japanese hero wouldn't have gone over very well. At least the Mr. Moto series ended on a very positive note.

...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.

This film is a jolt of punk rock fun, from start to finish. The Ramones, reigning princes of late-70s Punk rock, appear as themselves. PJ Soles stars as Riff Randle, the rebellious high school girl who lives and breathes rock 'n roll. Riff is obsessed with writing songs for the Ramones, her favorite rock band. She keeps the school rockin', and encourages her fellow-students to join her in her jubilant antics.<br /><br />Meanwhile the school that Riff attends, has just hired a brand-new Principal, named Ms. Togar. She's a tall, intimidating Amazon of a woman. And she vows to make the students 'toe-the-line'. She even has a couple of the students act as monitors, who report back to her with dirt on their classmates. Ms. Togar is especially determined to nab Riff, and put a stop to Riff's anarchic shenanigans. But Riff has clever ways to foil Togar, at every turn.<br /><br />Kudos to the superb performance of Mary Woronov, in her role as Principal Togar. Mary is a legendary B movie actress. And in this film, she plays the fascist Ms. Togar, with sneering relish. PJ Soles as Riff, turns in an electrifying performance. Clint Howard as the duplicitous Eaglebauer, has lots of fun with his role.<br /><br />The Ramones perform many of their hit songs in this film. And so the viewer sees why the Ramones were so influential, in the 70s Punk rock scene. Certainly, this is a good film for Ramones fans. But even if you're not into the Ramones, or Punk rock, this movie is a terrific blast (literally) of energetic fun.

Robert Altman shouldn't make a movie like this, but the fact that he did- and that it turns out to be a reasonably good and tightly-wound thriller in that paperback-tradition of Grisham thrillers- shows a versatility that is commendable. In the Gingerbread Man he actually has to work with something that, unfortunately, he isn't always very successful at, or at least it's not the first thing on his checklist as director: plot. There's one of those big, juicy almost pot-boiler plots where a sleazy lawyer gets caught up with a desperate low-class woman and then a nefarious figure whom the woman is related with enters their lives in the most staggering ways, twists and plot ensues, yada yada. And it's surprising that Altman would really want to take on one of these "I saw that coming from back there!" endings, or just a such a semi-conventional thriller.<br /><br />But it's a surprise that pays off because, oddly enough, Altman is able to catch some of that very fine behavior, or rather is able to unintentionally coax it out of a very well-cast ensemble, of a small-town Georgian environment. The film drips with atmosphere (if not total superlative craftsmanship, sometimes it's good and sometimes just decent for Altman), as Savannah is possibly going to be hit by a big hurricane and the swamp and marshes and rain keep things soaked and muggy and humid. So the atmosphere is really potent, but so are performances from (sometimes) hysterical Kenneth Branaugh, Embeth Davitz as the 'woman' who lawyer Branaugh gets caught up with, and Robert Downey Jr (when is he *not* good?) as the private detective in Branaugh's employ. Did I neglect Robert Duvall, who in just five minutes of screen time makes such an indelible impression to hang the bad-vibes of the picture on? <br /><br />As said, some of the plot is a little weak, or just kind of standard (lawyer is divorced, bitter custody battle looms, innocent and goofy kids), but at the same time I think Altman saw something captivating in the material, something darker than some of the other Grisham works that has this standing out somehow. If it's not entirely masterful, it still works on its limited terms as a what-will-happen-next mystery-Southern-noir.

Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.<br /><br />As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.<br /><br />Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries.

I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay

When I found this film in my local videostore I expected it to be another cheesy American vampire film in the same vein of "The Lost Boys"(1987).To my surprise "To Die for" is a really good movie.It's a little bit corny at times,but still there are enough stylish set-pieces and surprises to satisfy vampire enthusiasts.This is a perfect mix of romance and horror and it's surprisingly gory at times.Highly recommended.

Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.

I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.

My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.<br /><br />The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)<br /><br />The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.<br /><br />Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do.

I never saw this when I was a kid, so this was seen with fresh eyes. I had never heard of it and rented it for my 5 year old daughter. Plus, the idea of Christopher Walken singing and dancing made me curious. The special fx are cheesy and the singing and dancing is mediocre. But the story is great. My daughter was entranced. I loved watching Walken in this role thinking about what the future held for him. Very amusing to see him dance! And if the songs weren't great, at least they weren't Disney over-produced saccharine sweetness. The ogre scene in the beginning was a little scary for her, and she was a little nervous when we saw him again at the end, but it was mostly benign. Interestingly, we had recently read "Puss in Boots", and I had wondered about the implausibility of the story. But while staying true to almost every aspect, Walken's acting made it believable. Great fun. I'd watch it again with my daughter.

War is hell. But this documentary of WWII is heaven.<br /><br />Not only is this series a breath-taking, almost-exhaustive look at the Second World War, it's a poetic masterpiece told clearly and superbly by Laurence Olivier.<br /><br />This documentary series defines the genre. It's sweepingly long, no doubt, but you will enjoy all of them and want to come back for more and more. (I have the series on DVD and I probably watch the series three times a year).<br /><br />Truly, this is an impeccable bit of film-making. Other than Olivier, the best part of the series is listening to the veterans tell their stories; whether it be about an actual battle or about finding a hog to butcher so they could have something delicious for supper.<br /><br />I'm going to go watch it right now (again, my... 11th time).

A guy desperate for action attempts to hit on a gorgeous girl in a bus. She refuses him, but when he runs after someone who tries to steal her purse they get together anyway. And there it starts - a relation that is slightly tainted by the fact that she is a jealous and neurotic superhero. It can't be a secret that things between them are going to be problematic.<br /><br />In short, a story that could promise to grow out into a cool film. And IMO, it succeeds at being a nice film. It's no masterpiece, but it had me in tears from laughing on more than one occasion - the two lead characters twirl around each other in a crazy love fest that is, even with the superhero thing going, believable.<br /><br />So. Thin story, but worked out really funny and thus worthy of cinema time.<br /><br />7 out of 10 broken hearts

Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.<br /><br />The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again.

What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."<br /><br />You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.<br /><br />And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.<br /><br />Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.<br /><br />If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.

I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?

...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.

I cannot believe that this movie was ever created. I think at points the director is trying to make it an artistic piece but this just makes it worse. The zombies look like they applied too much eye makeup. The zombies are only in the movie for a few minutes. Finally, there are maybe five or six zombies total, definitely not a nation. The best part of the movie, if there is one is definitely the credits because the painful experience was finally finished. Again to reiterate other user comments, the voodoo priestesses are strange and do not make much sense in the whole movie. Also, there is a scene with a snake and a romanian girl that just does not make sense at all. It is never explained.

Some of the best movies that are categorized as "comedies" actually blur between comedy and drama. "The Graduate" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", which were made also in the late 1960's are perfect examples. Are they comedies with dramatic undertones, or dramas with a lot of humor? In many respects, "The Odd Couple" falls into this same category of being both comedy yet highly dramatic with deep underpinnings about human nature. Much of what happens may be funny to the audience but the characters are not laughing.<br /><br />Despite the rather light-hearted TV show of the 1970's, the original "Odd Couple" is not merely about a neat guy and messy guy who are forced to live together because of their marital situation. It's really about two opposites who must face why their marriages fell apart and how their detrimental idiosyncrasies reveal themselves outside of their marriage. Neatness, the characteristic of Felix Ungar (Jack Lemon perfectly cast) and messiness, the characteristic of Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), are only the beginning and somewhat superficial. As the story unfolds, we find there is a lot more to these men than simply neatness versus messiness.<br /><br />Briefly, the story is really about Felix Ungar, who has to face an impending divorce from his wife Francis, who we never meet but is an important character throughout the story. On the verge of suicide, Ungar goes to the only place he knows: the apartment of Oscar Madison where a group of poker buddies hang out every so often. We learn that Ungar is not only a member of this "poker club" but the group knows what's happening to him and try, in their inept way, to help out. Madison figures the best way to help Ungar is to let him move in with him until his suicidal tendencies wear off.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Madison, he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Madison is a carefree happy-go-lucky if rather irresponsible slob who's refrigerator was last cleaned probably when Herbert Hoover was still in the White House. Madison's idea of serving snacks is grabbing moldy cheese and sticking them in between two pieces of bread, and then throwing the contents of a bag of chips on the table. On the other hand, he enjoys booze and women, in short having a good time. <br /><br />Ungar is not only altogether different, he is diametrically opposite. He is not only an obsessive neatness nut that finds more joy in disinfecting the apartment than meeting women but he knows more than most women do about cooking and fine eating. At one point, he calls his ex-wife, not to talk about reconciling, but to get her recipe for meatloaf. At another moment, Ungar was going to spend the rest of the evening cutting cabbage for coleslaw. When Madison seems unimpressed, Ungar finally confesses he was only doing it for his roommate because he can't stand coleslaw. Who is this guy? But he has another endearing trait: Felix is also a hypochondriac. He obsesses about his health to the point where he makes strange noises in public places claiming he's helping his sinuses. He seems to have every health condition in the book. And if they made up more, Felix would probably have them. Ultimately, he is overly self-absorbed.<br /><br />Running throughout the movie are references to marriage. At one point when Madison is trying to convince Ungar to move in, he says, "What do you want, a wedding ring?" But little does he know that it is not the neat guy who can't deal with the messy guy, but the other way around. Their friendship becomes an inadvertent hellish relationship. And the climax occurs when Oscar invites two lonely British sisters for a get-together with both comedic and tragic results. This is one of the best comedies of its type ever written and not to be missed, with superlative performances by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon in roles that are hard to imagine better played by anyone else. It is unfortunate that writing of this caliber is sadly lacking from most comedies being produced today.

"What would you do?" is a question that will stick in your mind for weeks after watching the emotional Brokedown Palace. You will also be left wondering if Alice (Danes) was telling the truth or not - a issue that is left unresolved, and rightly so. This is a particularly well acted and beautifully shot film. Although it is slow at times, its pace is reflective of the story line - but a lot of the film will have you on the edge of your seat; wanting to know what happens next. The ending will also leave you imagining yourself in the shoes of the lead characters, which are brilliantly played by Kate Beckinsale and Claire Danes. Bill Pullman's performance is commendable, too.

Despite its budget limitations, this is a great film, proof that effort and imagination can overcome lack of cash. The opening, in which cave-paintings seem to show how some dinosaurs at least survived into the age of human beings, is a nice red herring. After that, a meteor comes down into a lake and causes heat which, in turn, causes the hatching of a frozen dinosaur egg (maybe the cave-paintings suggest instead that this isn't the first time such a thing has happened). When the prehistoric beast appears, it's a well-animated Plesiosaur which is soon causing disappearances in the local area. Alright, so it's not Jurassic Park, but it's still genuine entertainment for fans of monster movies.

I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.<br /><br />I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.<br /><br />The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.<br /><br />

I suppose JEDI is now chronologically to be considered the very "last" entry in the popular saga, and it's a very good one, as were several of these. I liked how directly this sequel took off after THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and I appreciated the maturity of Luke Skywalker as a character(and also Mark Hamill, as an actor). After hearing so many negative things about the Ewoks, they weren't so bad. I enjoyed the thrilling chase within the woods, and I felt there was a lot of well-realized emotion with this chapter. The ending (with some new additions, I presume?) successfully weaves all 6 chapters into a wonderful tale of fantasy. I know many true Star Wars fans hated George Lucas for changes he made to the original films, but being a relative novice to these movies rather late in life and not missing what I didn't already know, I think he made these 6 movies work perfectly as a whole entity. Oh, and, err -- Carrie Fisher looked quite delicious in her skimpy outfit.

This time we get a psycho toy maker named "Joe Petto" (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son "Pino" (again, get it?) used to live.<br /><br />Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of "Halloween III", "Puppet Master", "Dolls" and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...<br /><br />1/2 a star out of ****<br /><br />

What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.<br /><br />Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.

Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film.

Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III

This is only somewhat attractive for fans of "bad movie" entertainment. It is more worthwhile for students of 1970's pop culture: the fashions, the furniture, the attitudes, and that great "women's lib" moment of the early 1970's, when it was still fresh and novel for a self-employed, independent woman to exist.<br /><br />"Superchick" (Joyce Jillson) had a monetarily rewarding if stultifying career (after all, what is a flight attendant but a waitress at 30,000 feet -- that goes for the male ones too), she slept around with multiple men, could protect herself and others (with karate) and wasn't tied down to anything. This is the kind of emancipated woman that scared the juices out of anti-feminists, those retrograde idiots who believe that no woman is complete without a husband.<br /><br />The "sexy stewardess" was a potent archetype of the late 1960's to 1970's, (geez, even on "The Partridge Family," I remember swinging bachelor Ruben Kincaid constantly hooking up with stewardesses) and from that point of view, this silly film is an important pop culture time capsule of the pre-AIDS, free-love, women's lib, swinging Seventies. The plot is quite awful though. And for those cavemen in the audience, there are few bare breasts to look at.

When DEATHTRAP was first released, the poster--reproduced on the cover of this DVD--offered a graphic akin to a Rubik's Cube. It is an appropriate image: originally written for the stage by Ira Levin, who authored such memorable works as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE STEPFORD WIVES, the play was one of Broadway's most famous twisters, and under Sidney Lumet's direction it translates to the screen extremely well.<br /><br />DEATHTRAP is one of those films that it is very difficult to discuss, for to do so in any detail gives away the very plot for which it is famous. But the opening premise is extremely clever: Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is the famous author of mystery plays, but these days he seems to have lost his touch. After a particularly brutal opening night, an old student named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) sends him a script for a play he has written. It is called "Deathtrap," and Sidney recognizes it as a surefire hit. Just the sort of hit that would revive his career... indeed, a hit to die for. And when Clifford visits to discuss the play, events suddenly begin to twist in the most unexpected manner possible.<br /><br />Like Anthony Shaffer's equally twisty SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP is really a story more at home on the stage than the screen--to reach full power it needs the immediacy that a live performance offers. Still, under the expert guidance of director Sidney Lumet, it makes a more-than-respectable showing on the screen. Much of this is due to the cast, which is remarkably fine. Michael Caine gives a truly brilliant performance, Dyan Cannon is funny and endearing as Sidney's relentlessly anxious wife, and Christopher Reeve gives what might be the single finest performance in his regrettably short acting career. If you can't see it in a first-rate theatrical production, this will more than do until one comes along.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.

HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.<br /><br />Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job. <br /><br />---SPOILERS---<br /><br />Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*<br /><br />The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5.

I just couldn't stop laughing!! This movie is incredibly funny and stupid! But, never mind that, it is very entertaining! In this film, you don't need to pay attention to anything! The acting is the same - LAME! The dinosaurs are the same - RUBBER (Oh, my I could see the stick that holds T-Rex head for a moment.) The raptors are the same from the Carnosaur 2, T-Rex is also the same, but... in some scenes his head looks kinda stuffed and it looks like some kind of project failure from kindergarten. Action is fast, sometimes too fast, actually I talk about fast editing, they edited it so fast, so that we cannot see the rubber dinosaurs, but OOPPS! to late, they are rubber! Well, only things interesting here is to see Rick Dean in this sequel.<br /><br />What can I say... don't rent it... watch it on TV, with friends, it is much more entertaining!

There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.

Being a Film studies graduate I would like to think that I have seen a diverse range of films, some good and some bad, but I would have to say that 'Summer rain' is by far the worse film I have ever seen! I chose the film in the hope that it was going to be a great British classic such as 'Secrets and Lies' or 'Lockstock' but oh no this was so bad that my flat mates and I ended up laughing and cringing at the ridiculous acting and cheesy script (reminded me of a bad 'theatre in education' school production). The main characters Michelle and Gary began to annoy us from the start. 'Michelle' the main character who lives with her two friends has the type of face that you would never get tired of slapping and Gary was so wet (he kept breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) that by the end of the film I really didn't give a damn about either of them. All I could think was ' I paid £3 for this pile'. I have never written a review before but after watching this film it has spurred me on to warn people of this disastrous production. So please avoid at all costs. Thanks for reading.

Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?

This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.

I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.<br /><br />The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. <br /><br />As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.

The characters were alive and interesting, the plot was excellently paced, the pyro effects were masterfully accomplished, and it takes a basic love triangle story and tosses in a science-fiction element into it. I could identify with many of the characters and their motivations made logical rational sense in the framework of the story.<br /><br />The camera-work was great, the audio clear and accurate, the background music perfectly chosen for effect, the singing firemen a nice talented memorable oddity, the sets brilliantly crafted, and the special effects performed with a skilled talent.<br /><br />I am a tad puzzled how an entire mini-carnival in a chain-store's parking lot could be powered by one single lamppost outlet. That seems impossible to say the least. The fight between the brothers near the end of the movie was brilliant though. Having Jim Varney in a non-clown role was a wonderful touch too as played the semi-serious role of a carny very well.

What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie!

Jackie Chan's Police Story is a landmark film for both the Honk Kong action genre and the career of Jackie Chan.<br /><br />Directed/written by Chan, Police Story has a basic plot as did all the films of that era and genre, and like most of the the films of Police Storys' kind, the script is nothing to be raved about. But the plot of the film is Jackie Chan, who plays a nice guy cop, struggling to convict the local gang lord.<br /><br />The direction of the film is nothing special and by no means the best directing effort that Jackie Chan has given us, that responsibility falls to the underrated masterpiece "Miracles". However the job that Jackie does directing is sufficient and respectable. The standout out directing of the film comes with the fight scenes.<br /><br />The performances in this film also vary with Jackie giving a very solid typical Chan nice guy up against it role, but this is by no means his best acting role, that can been seen in the Sammo Hung directed film "Heart of the Dragon". The other actors in the film also give as good a solid performance as Jackie with Bridgete Lin playing her part of the unwilling witness reasonably well, but neither does she display full acting potential. The standout acting comes from Maggie Cheung as Jackies' suffering girlfriend and Bill Tung as the sympathetic and funny police chief. None of the performances in this film is of a low enough standard to affect the quality of the film. <br /><br />The action in the film is what really separates this film from others with stunning contemporary choreography to suit the urbanised, modern setting, the action is some some of the greatest fight scenes ever put on camera. To begin with there is a shootout in the slum where Koo (ganglord) is making a drug deal, whilst being no John Woo style sequence, this serves as a nice starter for the film. This is then followed by the famous car run down the side of the hill and through the heart of the slum wrecking everything in sight. This is a breathtaking sequence that has since been shamelessly copied by Bad Boys 2. In the middle of the film is yet another standout sequence as Jackie tries to transport Bridgete Lin from her house to his. This is really the first scene where we get to see the awesome fast paced hand to hand combat that has since become the norm for all modern set martial art films. This sequence is fantastically choreographed, timed and seamlessly edited together to maximise the brutality of the scene. However, as tradition dictates, the standout fight sequence is at the end of the film. This sequence displays some of Chans' best choreography, stunts and camera/editing work. This sequence is now famous for two things, the amount of people sent through high density glass, which has to be said a phenomenal amount of people, and the stunt at the end where Jackie leaps from a 5th storey balcony, grabs hold of a pole and slides down through a glass roof (this has to be seen to be believed). Whilst the two for-mentioned factors are both uniquely brilliant, i think that the most impressive part of this fight sequence is Chans' ability to incorporate anything into the fight sequence and the sheer originality of the choreography, that for me has never been bettered. I also believe that the action in Police Story is some of the best filmed and edited action of Chans career helping to set the action apart from others.<br /><br />Overall, Police Story, despite its unspectacular storyline and script and over running in the middle due to plot padding, is one of the best action films of all time displaying Chans best choreography, best filmed action and arguably his most spectacular stunt making this essential viewing for everyone. Afterall, we watch a Chan movie for the action!!

This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.

Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC!

In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!

I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb! <br /><br />Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this! <br /><br />I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!! <br /><br />This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!!

This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will.

******SPOILERS******<br /><br />The unfunny radio quiz show host Kyser and his mediocre band are the excuse for Lugosi, Karloff, and Lorre to pick up a paycheck in this bland, sporatically watchable haunted house spoof. Lugosi is a mystic whose seances are exposed as a fraudulent attempt to bilk an heiress' fortune; Karloff is the butler and Lorre is a professor who exposes fake mediums, but it turns out that they're both in conspiracy with Lugosi. <br /><br />Of course, Kay Kyser and his band of 30-something year old "kids" uncover the truth with the minimum of possible humor along the way. Not recommended to any but the absolute horror completist.

This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money.

"Soylent Green" is one of the best and most disturbing science fiction movies of the 70's and still very persuasive even by today's standards. Although flawed and a little dated, the apocalyptic touch and the environmental premise (typical for that time) still feel very unsettling and thought-provoking. This film's quality-level surpasses the majority of contemporary SF flicks because of its strong cast and some intense sequences that I personally consider classic. The New York of 2022 is a depressing place to be alive, with over-population, unemployment, an unhealthy climate and the total scarcity of every vital food product. The only form of food available is synthetic and distributed by the Soylent company. Charlton Heston (in a great shape) plays a cop investigating the murder of one of Soylent's most eminent executives and he stumbles upon scandals and dark secrets... The script is a little over-sentimental at times and the climax doesn't really come as a big surprise, still the atmosphere is very tense and uncanny. The riot-sequence is truly grueling and easily one of the most macabre moments in 70's cinema. Edward G. Robinson is ultimately impressive in his last role and there's a great (but too modest) supportive role for Joseph Cotton ("Baron Blood", "The Abominable Dr. Phibes"). THIS is Science-Fiction in my book: a nightmarish and inevitable fade for humanity! No fancy space-ships with hairy monsters attacking our planet.

The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.

THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)<br /><br />Number 1 - Television Show of all Time <br /><br />Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time. <br /><br />James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny. <br /><br />While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real. <br /><br />The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.<br /><br />Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character. <br /><br />Simply exceptional.<br /><br />10/10

After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.<br /><br />First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.<br /><br />Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.<br /><br />Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.<br /><br />As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.<br /><br />For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!

- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house? <br /><br />- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.<br /><br />- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.<br /><br />- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.

Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.

As romantic comedies go, this was a cute and winning one. I thought that the writing could have been stronger to build up the final connection a bit better, but that is not a huge tripping point. But, Amanda Detmer and Scott Wolf give nice performances and are as charming as ever. These are two of my favorite actors, and I was just glad to see them cast as romantic leads. I hope to see them cast in more projects soon.<br /><br />Overall, this movie won't change your life, but is is sweet, warm and winning. Not a bad thing to be at all.

Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.<br /><br />Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.